Zero Emission Vehicles Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25709 SHARE

   
Zero Emission Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and

their Emissions Implications (2019)
DETAILS
109 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-67283-2 | DOI 10.17226/25709
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Garnet Erdakos, Shih Ying Chang, Douglas Eisinger, Sonoma Technology, Inc. and
Adrienne Heller, Heather Unger, Louis Berger; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
FIND RELATED TITLES
SUGGESTED CITATION
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Zero Emission

Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and their Emissions Implications.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25709.

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Zero Emission Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and their Emissions Implications
NCHRP
Web-Only Document 274:
Zero Emission Vehicles:

Forecasting Fleet
Scenarios and their
Emissions Implications
Garnet Erdakos
Shih Ying Chang
Douglas Eisinger
Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Petaluma, CA
Adrienne Heller
Heather Unger
Louis Berger
Denver, CO
Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 115

Submitted November 2019
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP
Web-Only Document 274:
Zero Emission Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and their

Emissions Implications
Garnet Erdakos
Shih Ying Chang
Douglas Eisinger
Sonoma Technology, Inc.
Petaluma, CA
Adrienne Heller
Heather Unger
Louis Berger
Denver, CO
Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 115

Submitted November 2019
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation
with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP),
which is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine.
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or
persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein.
Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit
purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular
product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit
uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material,
request permission from CRP.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They
are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine;
or the program sponsors.
The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been
edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through
trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The
Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from
the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by
state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 274

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Ann M. Hartell, Senior Program Officer
Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications
Jennifer J. Weeks, Publishing Projects Manager
NCHRP PROJECT 25-25 PANEL

Field of Transportation Planning—Human and Natural Environment
Antony F. Opperman, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA (Chair)

Gail Anne D'Avino, Georgia DOT, Atlanta, GA
William B. Fletcher, II, Oregon DOT, Portland, OR
Jane N. Hann, Colorado DOT, Denver, CO
Timothy Hill, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH
Timothy V. Sexton, Minnesota DOT, St. Paul, MN
Colleen M. Turner, Maryland DOT, Hanover, MD
Susan Jones, FHWA Liaison
Shannon Eggleston, AASHTO Liaison
Melissa A. Savage, AASHTO Liaison
Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted for the AASHTO Committee on Environment and
Sustainability, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25, Task 115, Estimates of Emissions Reductions
from Future Fleet Changes for Use in Air Quality Models. The report was prepared by
Garnet Erdakos, Shih Ying Chang, and Douglas Eisinger of Sonoma Technology, and
Adrienne Heller and Heather Unger of Louis Berger. The work was guided by a technical
working group that included:
• Colleen M. Turner, Maryland Department of Transportation
• Rick Baker, Eastern Research Group, Inc.
• Jeffrey R. Lidicker, California Air Resources Board
• Jane Jie Lin, University of Illinois – Chicago
• Natalie Ries, Minnesota Department of Transportation
• Lubna Shoaib, East West Gateway Council of Government
• Benjamin P. VanGessel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• John Davies, Federal Highway Administration (Liaison)
• Melissa Savage, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Liaison)
The project was managed by Ann Hartell, NCHRP Senior Program Officer, with assistance
from Jarrel McAfee.
The research team thanks Dr. Song Bai of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
for his input on the research approach used in this study. In addition, appreciation goes to
John Davies of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration, Dr. Zhenhong Lin of the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, and Andrew Breck of the Volpe National Transportation
Systems Center, for their insights regarding use of the MA3T model.

CONTENTS
SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 1 Background and Approach ..................................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER 2 Brief Literature Review to Support Modeling Scenario Development................................... 7
2.1 Methodology for Literature Review ............................................................................................. 7
2.2 Literature Review Findings Relevant to Modeling Scenario Development................................ 12
2.2.1 Historical ATV Sales ............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.2 ATV Market Share ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3 Factors Affecting ATV Adoption ............................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Consumer Preferences ........................................................................................................... 15
2.3.2 State and Federal Policies Influencing BEV/FCEV Adoption .............................................. 18
2.3.3 Technology Characteristics ................................................................................................... 20
2.3.4 Infrastructure Initiatives......................................................................................................... 21
2.4 Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 3 Analysis Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 25
3.1 Overview of the MA3T Model .................................................................................................... 25
3.2 MA3T and Projections of Future ATV Sales and Populations .................................................... 26
3.3 ZEV Fleet Assumptions in the MOVES Model.......................................................................... 28
3.4 Summary of ZEV Adoption Scenarios ....................................................................................... 28
CHAPTER 4 Modeling Assumptions and Results ..................................................................................... 30
4.1 Assumptions for Infrastructure Scenarios ................................................................................... 34
4.1.1 Public charging availability assumptions (I1 simulations) .................................................... 34
4.1.2 Public charging power level (I2 simulations) ........................................................................ 35
4.1.3 Home charging availability (I3 simulations) ......................................................................... 35
4.1.4 Home charging power (I4 simulations) ................................................................................. 36
4.1.5 Workplace charging availability (I5 simulations) ................................................................. 36
4.1.6 Workplace charging power level (I6 simulations) ................................................................. 36
4.2 Assumptions for Incentive/Policy Scenarios .............................................................................. 36
4.2.1 ARRA parameter assumptions (P1 and P2 simulations) ....................................................... 36
4.2.2 State rebate assumptions (P3 through P5 simulations) .......................................................... 37
4.2.3 HOV lane access duration assumptions (P6 simulations)...................................................... 38

4.3 Assumptions for Cost Parity Scenarios ....................................................................................... 38

4.3.1 Vehicle manufacturer cost assumptions (C1 simulations) ..................................................... 38
4.3.2 Gasoline and diesel price assumptions (C2 and C3 simulations) .......................................... 38
4.4 Model Results for ZEV Populations ........................................................................................... 39
4.5 Model Results for Emissions Reductions ................................................................................... 42
4.6 Summary of Modeling Results, Major Limitations, and Implications........................................ 66
CHAPTER 5 Conclusions and Suggested Research ................................................................................... 70
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 73
ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................................. 81
APPENDIX A Supplemental Data ............................................................................................................. 83

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Annual ATV sales by ATV category .......................................................................................... 13
Figure 2. Light-Duty ATV Stock by Vehicle Type .................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. Forecasted Annual BEV sales from MA3T V20190404 and the 2019 AEO. .............................. 27
Figure 4. Historical (2017) and projected (2040) ZEV populations using three different data
sources. ....................................................................................................................................................... 28
Figure 5. State average electricity sources and annual emissions per EVs and PHEVs for
Washington state and Colorado. ................................................................................................................. 47
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Inputs in MA3T Model .................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. Number of Resources Reviewed by Topic Area ............................................................................. 9
Table 3. Literature and Data Sources Reviewed ........................................................................................... 9
Table 4. Drivers and Barriers to ATV Adoption......................................................................................... 16
Table 5. Electric Stations and Public Electric Charger Counts by State (2019) ......................................... 21
Table 6. Summary of key factors affecting ATV adoption and their relative importance. ......................... 24
Table 7. ZEV adoption scenarios for modeling in MA3T and estimating emissions reductions ................ 29
Table 8. MA3T parameter adjustments for ZEV adoption scenario simulations ........................................ 31
Table 9. Model results of total ZEV population (millions of vehicles) in 2040 under all scenarios, as
estimated by MA3T.a ................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 10. Model results of total ZEV population in 2040 (as a percentage of the total light-duty
vehicle population) under all scenarios, as estimated by MA3T.a ............................................................... 42
Table 11. Vehicle type mapping between MA3T and MOVES2014b ........................................................ 43
Table 12. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of criteria
pollutants and total hydrocarbons (HCs) for calendar year 2040................................................................ 48
Table 13. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of four MSATs
for calendar year 2040.a .............................................................................................................................. 53
Table 14. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of remaining
MSATs for calendar year 2040.a ................................................................................................................. 58
Table 15. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions of GHGs (million metric
tons CO2; metric tons CH4 and N2O) for calendar year 2040.a ................................................................... 63
Table 16. Qualitative impacts of modeled cost parity, policy, and infrastructure changes in the
scenario simulations. ................................................................................................................................... 68

SUMMARY
This report presents work completed for NCHRP 25-25 Task 115: Estimates of Emissions Reductions
from Future Fleet Changes for Use in Air Quality Models. The goal of this work was to quantify emission
changes of criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), and greenhouse gases (GHGs) as a
result of varying future battery electric vehicle (BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) adoption rates
in the U.S. This work aimed to provide state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) with technical insights, while identifying emission reduction strategies
and their relative effectiveness that could inform policy decisions to advance penetration of zero-emission
vehicles (ZEV) into the light-duty vehicle fleet.
This work included (1) a literature review to identify and review how various programs affect ZEV
adoption (ZEVs represent BEVs and FCEVs in this work), and support the development of scenarios used
in quantifying future emissions reductions resulting from adoption of ZEVs; (2) development of analysis
scenarios used to demonstrate different levels of ZEV adoption given different future policy, consumer,
technology, and infrastructure assumptions; (3) application of the Market Acceptance of Advanced
Automotive Technologies (MA3T) model (public version V20190404), developed by the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), to estimate ZEV populations in 2040 for the analysis scenarios; and (4)
modeling of emissions using the MOtor Vehicles Emission Simulator (MOVES2014b) for each analysis
scenario to estimate emissions reductions (compared to a Base Case scenario) as a result of increased
ZEV adoption.
The literature focused on consumer preferences, policies, technology, and infrastructure that impact ZEV
adoption. Much of the literature reviewed covered all advanced technology vehicles (ATVs), including
hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), in addition to ZEVs.
Although the results of the literature review include findings for other ATVs, the emissions assessment
for this report focuses exclusively on ZEVs. In general, annual ATV sales are expected to increase over
the coming decades. In particular, the literature review indicates that passenger vehicles and trucks that
are not internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) are expected to increase from approximately 3% of
the vehicle population in 2020 to 15% of the population in 2040. That forecasted 2040 market share of
15% differs from the modeling results in this study, which are only for ZEVs (discussed later). While
there are many factors responsible for forecasted changes in the number of ATVs, this research identified
the following factors as having the greatest importance as drivers and barriers to ATV adoption:
• Drivers
o High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane access
o High vehicle performance and reliability
o Long driving range
o Cost parity between ATVs and ICEVs, including purchase cost and fuel cost
• Barriers
o Higher purchase cost
o Lack of home charging availability
o Lack of knowledge about BEVs
o Limited vehicle model choice and availability
o Limited vehicle range

o Negative attitude towards new technology
Several other factors play a supporting role in driving ATV adoption. Technology changes continue to
drive down purchase cost for ATVs. Policies, such as rebates and tax credits, may also reduce the
effective purchase cost of ATVs. Infrastructure initiatives that increase the availability of electric vehicle
service equipment (EVSE; for example, EV charging stations) and other alternative fuels also help to
reduce barriers to consumer ATV adoption.
These factors were found to closely match inputs used in MA3T to influence changes in ATV adoption.
The MA3T model is a comprehensive consumer choice model that forecasts future ZEV populations by
integrating several behavioral models with certain known technology, infrastructure, and policy
parameters. The model uses state- and regional-level inputs but is best used for analysis of nationwide
outputs because it is calibrated to nationwide data. The model’s baseline forecasts were comparable to
ZEV populations estimated using other data sources, and it was found to be suitable for use in this study.
Four key scenarios were developed:
1. Base Case: business as usual (without changes to default MA3T parameter inputs)
2. Substantial Expansion of Infrastructure: expansion of EVSE beyond recent and pending
improvements
3. Advanced Use of Incentives: wide implementation of high-impact incentive policies/programs
4. Accelerated Achievement of Cost Parity: accelerated reduction of battery cost and increased
gasoline cost
The Base Case scenario was used as a point of comparison for the three alternative scenarios with
expected greater ZEV adoption. The three alternative scenarios were developed with changes in the
underlying factors that would likely result in the largest changes in ZEV adoption. They represent a range
of scenarios, including those that reflect historical fluctuations in gasoline price, advancements in ZEV
technology supported by recent trends, operational changes in factors such as HOV lane management, and
others. While a confluence of factors may lead to synergistic growth in ZEV adoption, in this study, the
value of only one input parameter was adjusted in each set of simulations. Although MA3T does have
important feedback loops built into the model, modeling combined effects by adjusting multiple
parameters in a single simulation was beyond the scope of this study.
A total of 49 MA3T V20190404 sensitivity simulations were conducted for this project, each
corresponding to one analysis scenario and one or more model input parameters. Three simulations were
conducted for each scenario and input parameter(s) combination, representing “Low”, “Medium”, and
“High” adjustments to the default value(s) of the model parameter(s). The parameters adjusted and levels
of adjustment were informed by evidence gathered in the literature review. The large parameter
adjustments were used to better understand the relative importance of each parameter within the MA3T
model; these large adjustments do not necessarily reflect a likely future condition, but rather a possible
future condition given technology and known investments as of 2019. The largest parameter adjustments
were used to demonstrate the largest possible increases in ZEV adoption given technology that is
currently feasible. The analysis is not intended to make a case for any particular future outcome, but to
illustrate the effect of each scenario on future emissions. The analysis also does not capture emissions
associated with the energy source used for each of the vehicle types, or “wheel-to-well” emissions. It
focuses solely on changes to vehicle fleet exhaust emissions.

The relative increases in ZEV populations modeled by MA3T are generally consistent with the findings in
the literature review (e.g., the literature shows that purchase cost is the greatest barrier to ZEV adoption,
and the largest ZEV population increases modeled with MA3T [and corresponding reductions in
emissions] are for the cost parity scenarios). The modeled percentage of ZEVs relative to the total U.S.
light-duty vehicle population in the Base Case scenario was 9% in 2040 (in contrast to the forecasted 15%
identified in the literature review that included all ATVs). Although the percentage of ZEVs did not
increase from the Base Case for several of the simulations, it increased to 12% on average across all
simulations, and to 40% for the simulation with the greatest increase.
California leads the 50 states and Washington D.C. in terms of total ATV sales, with 1,269,877 ATV
sales (60% HEV, 22% BEV, 18% PHEV, and 0.4% FCEV) between 2011 and 2018. That value is five
times higher than ATV sales in Florida (231,360), which accounts for the second most ATV sales for a
state over the time period. There is substantial uncertainty surrounding the modeled outcomes presented
here. The main objective of this work was not so much to forecast a precise expected future fraction of the
vehicle fleet that will become ZEVs, as to enable readers to understand what key factors influence the
degree to which ZEVs will penetrate the vehicle fleet.
By default, MA3T assumes that there are no FCEVs on the market. To obtain FCEV sales and population
estimates from MA3T, numerous input parameters would be required and the model would need to be
recalibrated, which was beyond the scope of this project. The 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)
forecasts that FCEVs will account for less than half a percent of the total light-duty vehicle fleet in 2040,
and it is highly uncertain what the FCEV technology and supporting infrastructure will be at that time.
The MOVES2014b model was used to calculate light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions for all analysis
scenarios using vehicle populations and sales estimated by MA3T. Other emission processes, such as start
emissions, evaporative emissions, and refueling emissions, were not modeled. The pollutants included in
the analysis were criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx], carbon monoxide [CO], particulate matter
[PM2.5 and PM10]), total gaseous hydrocarbons (HCs), MSATs (1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene [gaseous and particulate]), and GHGs (carbon dioxide
[CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]). Since the emissions focus of this study was vehicle
exhaust, the modeling did not include emissions of PM from tire wear, brake wear, and re-entrained road
dust, which are independent of vehicle fuel type. An analysis year of 2040 was used for all four modeling
scenarios, and ZEV population estimates for the year 2040 were taken from the MA3T model and used
with MOVES2014b to calculate emissions for the year 2040.
Importantly, while estimated emissions decreased with increased ZEV population in the three alternative
scenarios compared to the Base Case, the level of decrease was not as great as the change in total ZEV
population. Emissions reductions are driven by the change in conventional vehicle population, which
remains a larger portion of the total light-duty fleet even in 2040. For example, if ZEVs account for 10%
of the light-duty vehicle population, doubling that percentage to 20% corresponds to only a 10% decrease
in conventional vehicle population, and emissions are directly related to the change in conventional
vehicle population.
The emissions reductions were roughly the same across pollutants in each simulation. The highest level of
reduction for any of the scenarios was equal to a 23% decrease in CO2 emissions, associated with vehicle
manufacturer cost parity. In general, the maximum modeled emissions reductions achieved across the
simulations in the infrastructure scenarios and most Incentive/Policy scenarios were approximately 2-3%

in 2040. Although financial incentives like tax credits and rebates contribute to the reduction of overall
ZEV cost, the MA3T model generally estimated moderate increases in the ZEV population as a result of
changes to those inputs, with the greatest increases due to extension of the duration of rebates. It is
possible that the longer a credit or rebate applies, the greater its effectiveness will be, as consumers have a
longer period to learn about rebate and tax credit programs and consider how those will affect their net
cost for ZEV vehicle ownership. Indeed, findings in the literature review suggest that consumer education
plays an important role in making rebates and tax credits effective.
The sensitivity testing completed here indicated the relative importance of the various factors represented
in the modeling scenarios. The findings suggest that, to support efforts to promote adoption of ZEVs,
state DOTs and MPOs should consider the following implications from the simulations (listed in order of
importance):
• Cost Parity simulations, specifically the High and Medium cases of the vehicle manufacturer cost
simulations and gasoline price simulations, resulted in the greatest reductions of light-duty
vehicle emissions.
• Long-duration rebates in states that did not have a rebate as of 2019 resulted in the next highest
reductions of light-duty vehicle emissions.
• After the Low case of the gasoline price simulation set, the greatest change in HOV lane access
(i.e., extended access to HOV lanes from 2014-2030) had the next highest emissions reductions.
DOTs and MPOs may have less influence over ZEV purchase and fuel costs compared to ZEV
infrastructure expansion. Infrastructure initiatives that state DOTs might support are important for
increasing ZEV adoption, and the modeling results for the infrastructure scenarios show moderate
reductions in criteria pollutants, MSATs, and GHGs. Also, DOTs and MPOs may make recommendations
for advancing policies that support ZEV adoption, such as HOV lane access and rebate programs, and
could provide resources to address the need for consumer awareness and education. This report provides
state DOTs and MPOs detailed estimates of the potential effectiveness of various factors that affect ZEV
adoption for reducing light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions.

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH

Vehicle electrification is one of the emerging and potentially disruptive technologies that are being
considered to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, mobile source air toxics (MSATs), and greenhouse
gases (GHGs) from motor vehicles. With the implementation of many new vehicle technologies and
policy programs, the transition from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to electric technology
vehicles—such as battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and FCEVs—is under way. The adoption of zero-
emission vehicles (ZEVs)—referring to BEVs and FCEVs in this project—is expected to increase air
quality benefits given that these vehicles have zero exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants, MSATs, and
GHGs (setting aside emissions associated with power generation). Accelerating the adoption of advanced
vehicle technologies to replace conventional gasoline- or diesel-powered vehicles could play an important
role in reducing mobile source emissions.
The purpose of the NCHRP 25-25 Task 115 project is to quantify emission changes of criteria pollutants,
MSATs, and GHGs as a result of varying future electric and fuel cell vehicle adoption rates in the U.S.,
and to give transportation agencies insight into the policy changes that could most impact ZEV adoption
in the years ahead. To support this project, a set of scenarios of infrastructure development, policy
changes, and cost parameters were developed, and a suite of 49 simulations across those scenarios were
conducted to assess their impact on nationwide ZEV adoption was forecasted, and their corresponding
exhaust emissions were estimated. Other emissions processes (e.g., start emissions, evaporative
emissions, and refueling emissions) were not modeled. The results of this project will benefit state
departments of transportation (DOTs) and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) by identifying
actions (e.g., policy options) and their relative effectiveness as emission reduction strategies.
A brief literature review was conducted in order to identify and review how various programs and policies
affect ZEV adoption. Much of the literature reviewed covered all advanced technology vehicles (ATVs),
including hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), in addition to
ZEVs. The results of the literature review presented in this report include findings for all of these ATVs.
The findings in the literature review were used to support the development of scenarios used in
quantifying future emissions reductions resulting from adoption of ZEVs.
By focusing on the most important adoption factors identified in the literature review, the analysis
scenarios were used to demonstrate different levels of ZEV adoption given different future policy,
consumer, technology, and infrastructure assumptions. The Market Acceptance of Advanced Automotive
Technologies (MA3T) model (version V20190404), developed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL), was selected to estimate future ZEV populations for the analysis scenarios. Other models are
available (e.g., see Javid and Nejat 2017, Liao et al. 2017, Stephens et al. 2017); however, MA3T is a
comprehensive model that has been widely used for several government and other studies (e.g., Lin and
Greene 2011, Greene et al. 2013, Lin et al. 2013, Farzaneh et al. 2014, Podkaminer et al. 2017), and was
recommended by the advisory panel for this project.
The MA3T model is a consumer choice model that estimates future sales, populations, and fuel
consumption of ATVs, including ZEVs. The model allows users to modify key parameters within the
model in developing these forecasts, including consumer data (e.g., attitudes, behaviors, and vehicle
charging accessibility), technology data (e.g., vehicle cost, battery cost, and battery range), policy data
(e.g., incentives like rebates and tax credits), and infrastructure data (e.g., charging stations and costs).
Where possible, supporting data from the literature were used to inform parameter adjustments required

by the MA3T model so that scenarios were developed to reflect plausible future conditions and potential
changes in ZEV adoption rates. The MOVES2014b model was selected to estimate projected pollutant
exhaust emissions across the scenarios.
Four modeling scenarios were selected: (1) Base Case, or business as usual; (2) Substantial Expansion of
Infrastructure; (3) Advanced Use of Incentives; and (4) Accelerated Achievement of Cost Parity.
Collectively, the scenarios bracket a broad range of potential future ZEV fleet changes given different
future policy, technology, and infrastructure assumptions. A total of 49 MA3T simulations were
conducted for the scenarios listed above; different simulations correspond to different MA3T input
parameters (e.g., rebate amounts and availability of electric vehicle charging stations) linked to ZEV
adoption rates in a given category (e.g., incentive and infrastructure inputs) and “Low,” “Medium,” and
“High” adjustments to the input parameters.
Three sets of data are presented in this report: (1) the input parameters in MA3T that were adjusted, and
details about the value adjustments made to those parameters for each scenario; (2) changes to ZEV
populations estimated by MA3T resulting from the parameter adjustments; and (3) the resulting percent
changes in emissions that were estimated by the MOVES2014b model for each scenario. The analyses
focus on calendar year 2040 only, and include estimates of vehicle exhaust emissions only. Changes in
ZEV populations and the resulting changes in emissions represent the differences between results from
the Base Case scenario and the three alternative scenarios.
The following chapters describe (1) the results from the literature review (Chapter 2); (2) the MA3T
model and the ZEV adoption scenarios (Chapter 3); (3) the adjustments made to MA3T input parameters
for each scenario and the corresponding modeled ZEV population changes and emissions changes for
criteria pollutants, MSATs, and GHGs (Chapter 4); and (4) conclusions and suggestions for future
research (Chapter 5).

CHAPTER 2 BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW TO SUPPORT MODELING

SCENARIO DEVELOPMENT
2.1 METHODOLOGY FOR LITERATURE REVIEW
The objective of the literature review was to quickly gain insight into key factors affecting ZEV adoption,
and how those could be represented by MA3T in our analysis. The objective of this literature review is not
to complete a comprehensive review of all literature available; based on collaborative input from the
panel, the research team identified approximately 30 resources that were well-suited to developing
variables required by the MA3T model. The review emphasized material produced by organizations that
are active in ATV research or deployment, including the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA),
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories (e.g., the U.S. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory [NREL], ORNL, energy producers (e.g., British Petroleum), automobile manufacturers (e.g.,
the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers), the National Academy of Sciences, and non-governmental
organizations (e.g., the Union of Concerned Scientists).
Resources were evaluated based on whether they provided insight into the key factors leading towards
increasing the market share of ZEVs. These factors were considered during the literature review:
• EVSE initiatives.
• Historical data on ZEV market share and projected adoption rates and sales trends.
• Policies and programs understood to affect ZEV adoption rates (e.g., purchase rebates and high
occupancy vehicle [HOV] lane access).
• Vehicle technology characteristics (e.g., battery life, change in cost of technology).
The approach for the literature review was to identify the important factors to inform the use of MA3T.
The MA3T model structure provides a useful framework for linking policy shifts to ATV adoption, and
helped structure the literature review. A list of the inputs used in the MA3T model are included in
Table 1.

Table 1. Inputs in MA3T Model.
Technology Policy
• Vehicle manufacturer cost • American Recovery and Reinvestment
• Fuel economy in charge depleting-mode Act (ARRA)
• Electricity consumption • "Instant rebate"
• Range • Tax credit
• Acceleration • Free parking
• Cargo/luggage space • HOV access
• Towing capability
• Gas/fuel storage capacity Consumer
• Passenger capacity • Geographic regions (i.e., state)
• Year on market • Area type (i.e., Metropolitan Statistical
• Vehicle range utilization Area or central city), suburb inside
• Vehicle survival rate Metropolitan Statistical Area (or
• Component share of drivetrain cost suburban) and outside Metropolitan
• Supply constraint parameters (i.e., a cap Statistical Area (or rural)
on the number of possible ATV sales • Consumer attitude towards innovation
because of a supply limitation) • Driver type
• Overseas sales • Electric charging availability (home and
• Overseas technology spillover (i.e., workplace)
additional U.S. sales that occur as a result
of overseas sales) Infrastructure
• Technology experience (i.e., the
• Refueling availability (by fuel type)
relationship between increased investment
and the cumulative installed capacity of • Public electric charging availability
the technology) • Gasoline, diesel, electricity, hydrogen,
• Fuel economy adjustment factor and natural gas prices
• National stock
• Resale value at end of planned vehicle
lifetime
• Annual maintenance cost
• Make and model availability parameters
(i.e., as make and model availability
increases, consumer utility increases)
• Vehicle price markup
• Vehicle fuel/electricity consumption rate
Focus on the MA3T model included two main areas:

1. Forecasting tools that could be used to estimate electric vehicle adoption in 2040.
2. Parameters needed to develop adoption scenarios.
The necessary parameters for developing adoption scenarios included historical data on ZEV market
share, policies influencing ZEV adoption, technology advances that lower capital/operating vehicle costs,
behavioral incentives, fuel prices, and consumer financial incentives.

Various resources that included peer-reviewed journal articles and government and non-governmental
reports and online databases were reviewed (see Appendix A). Table 2 summarizes the number of
resources reviewed by topic area. Many of the resources cover multiple topic areas, especially the areas
that represent the parameters used in MA3T (i.e., consumer preferences, policies, technology, and
infrastructure). Because ZEV technology and adoption has changed rapidly during the last several years,
the review focused on recent resources – a majority of which were published between 2016 and 2018.
Those resources are listed in Table 3. The key findings from this literature review are discussed in the
next section.
Table 2. Number of Resources Reviewed by Topic Area.
Forecast Historical Consumer Policies Technology Infrastructure Other

Resources Data Preferences
15 16 23 20 22 25 16
Table 3. Literature and Data Sources Reviewed.
Title Author Publication

Year
Advanced Technology Vehicle Sales Dashboard Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 2019
Alternative Fuels Data Center U.S. DOE 2019
Annual Energy Outlook 2019 U.S. EIA 2019
National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Electrify America 2019
Annual Energy Outlook 2018 U.S. EIA 2018
BP Energy Outlook – 2018 Edition British Petroleum 2018
California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Electrify America 2018
Demonstrating Plug-in Electric Vehicles Smart R. Gadh 2018

Charging and Storage Supporting the Grid
Global EV Outlook 2018 International Energy Agency 2018
PEV Policy Evaluation Rubric: A Methodology G. Morrison, N. Veilleux and C. Powers 2018
for Evaluating the Impact of State and Local
Polices on Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption
Sizing Up a Potential Fuel Economy Standards K. Larson, T. Houser, and S. Mohan 2018
Freeze


Year
The Continued Transition to Electric Vehicles in P. Slowik and N. Lutsey 2018

U.S. Cities
The Road Ahead for Zero-Emission Vehicles in Beacon Economics 2018

California
Towards Road Freight Decarbonisation - International Transport Forum 2018

Trends, Measures and Policies
Zero-Emission Vehicles – Fact Sheet California Public Utilities Commission 2018

(CPUC)
Analysis of the Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicle U.S. EIA 2017

Policies: State-Level Incentives and the
California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations
California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 1 Electrify America and Volkswagen 2017
Group of America
Comparison of Vehicle Choice Models T.S. Stephens, R.S. Levinson, A. 2017

Brooker, C. Liu, Z. Lin, A. Birky, and
E. Kontou
Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a L. Fanchao, E. Molin, and B. van Wee 2017
literature review
How policy can build the plug-in electric vehicle M. Wolinetz and J. Axsen 2017
market: Insights from the Respondent-based
Preference and Constraints (REPAC) model
Literature Review of Electric Vehicle Consumer L. Jin and P. Slowik 2017

Awareness and Outreach Activities
National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure U.S. NREL 2017

Analysis
National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 1 Volkswagen Group of America 2017
No free ride to zero-emissions: Simulating a M. Sykes and J. Axsen 2017

region's need to implement its own zero-
emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate to achieve 2050
GHG targets
REV UP Electric Vehicles: Multi-State Study of Sierra Club (M. Lunetta and G. Coplon- 2017
the Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience Newfield)
State Efforts to Promote Hybrid and Electric K. Hartman and E. Dowd 2017
Vehicles
10


Year
Supplement to the California ZEV Investment Electrify America and Volkswagen 2017
Plan: Cycle 1 Group of America.
Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018 – California Energy Commission 2017

2030
Electric Vehicle Survey Methodology and Consumers Union and the Union of 2016
Assumptions: Driving Habits, Vehicle Needs, Concerned Scientists
and Attitude towards Electric Vehicles in the
Northeast and California
Electric vehicles revisited: a review of factors M. Coffman, P. Bernstein, and S. Wee 2016
that affect adoption
Electrifying the Vehicle Market: Evaluating D. Reichmuth and D. Anair 2016

Automaker Leaders and Laggards in the United
States
Fuel Cell Technologies Market Report 2016 U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency 2016
and Renewable Energy
Learning from Norwegian Battery Electric and E. Figenbaum and M. Kolbenstvedt 2016
Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle users
Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption Z. Rezvani, J. Jansson, and J. Bodin 2015
research: A review and research agenda
Feasibility and Implications of Electric Vehicle D. Fordham, J. Norris, and J. Proudfoot 2015
(EV) Deployment and Infrastructure
Development
Overcoming Barriers to Deployment of Plug-in The National Academies Press 2015

Electric Vehicles
Accounting for Electric Vehicles in Air Quality R. Farzaneh, Y. Chen, J. Johnson, J. 2014
Conformity Zietsman, C. Gu, T. Ramani, L.D.
White, M.K., and Y. Zhang
11


Year
Exploring the Impact of High Occupancy G. Tal and M.A. Nicholas 2014
Vehicle (HOV) Lane Access on Plug-in Vehicle
Sales and Usage in California
How Much Do Electric Vehicles Matter to S. Babaee, A.S. Nagpure, and J.F. 2014
Future U.S. Emissions? DeCarolis
The influence of financial incentives and other W. Sierzchula, S. Bakker, K. Maat, and 2014
socio-economic factors on electric vehicle B. van Wee
adoption
Review of Hybrid, Plug-In Hybrid, And Electric B.M. Al-Alawi and T.H. Bradley 2013
Vehicle Market Modeling Studies
Final Rule for Model Year 2017 and Later U.S. EPA and U.S. DOT 2012
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards (and accompanying Fact Sheet)
Promoting the Market for Plug-In Hybrid and Z. Lin and D.L. Greene 2011
Battery Electric Vehicles: Role of Recharge
Availability
A Plug-in Hybrid Consumer Choice Model with Z. Lin and D.L. Greene 2009
Detailed Market Segmentation
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW FINDINGS RELEVANT TO MODELING SCENARIO

DEVELOPMENT
Based on the literature listed in Table 3, the following key findings on programs related to ATV adoption
were identified. The following review focuses on model inputs that would be necessary to prepare the
MA3T model for simulating ZEV adoption in the analysis scenarios.
2.2.1 Historical ATV Sales
The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers has recorded ATV sales since 2011 in their Advanced
Technology Vehicle Sales Dashboard (ATV Sales Dashboard), focusing on sales of HEVs, FCEVs,
BEVs, and PHEVs. Figure 1 shows the annual sales of the four types of ATVs accounted for in the ATV
Sales Dashboard and the total ATV sales (solid line). HEVs have had the greatest number of sales since
2011, but sales for HEVs have been declining for several years while sales of PHEVs, FCEVs, and BEVs
have been rising. Although FCEV sales increased dramatically between 2015 and 2016 (by a factor of 14)
and grew by 80% in 2017, their sales accounted for only 0.3% of total ATV sales in 2018. Meanwhile,
sales of BEVs have steadily grown since 2015 and doubled between 2017 and 2018, reaching 31% of
total ATV sales in 2018. PHEVs have had a slightly lower growth rate compared to BEVs, and account
for 19% of total ATV sales in 2018. ATV sales slumped substantially in 2015. This is likely due to
reductions in manufacture incentives, declining gasoline prices, and potential delays in consumer
12

purchases as a result of future electric vehicle releases (Shepardson 2017; UCLA 2017; Voelcker 2016).
These factors are captured within the MA3T forecast of the future vehicle fleet.
California leads the 50 states and Washington D.C. in terms of total ATV sales, with 1,269,877 ATV
sales (60% HEV, 22% BEV, 18% PHEV, and 0.4% FCEV) between 2011 and 2018. That value is five
times higher than ATV sales in Florida (231,360), which accounts for the second most ATV sales for a
state over the time period. Six other states have exceeded 100,000 ATV sales between 2011 and 2018,
including (in order of decreasing sales) Texas, New York, Illinois, Washington, Pennsylvania, and
Virginia (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 2019).
700,000
600,000
Annual ATV Sales in the U.S.
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
HEV PHEV BEV FCEV Total
Figure 1. Annual ATV sales by ATV category.

Data Source: Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 2019.
2.2.2 ATV Market Share

According to the ATV Sales Dashboard, in 2018, ATVs represented approximately 3.9% of annual
market share of all registered cars in the country. Combined, BEVs and FCEVs represented 1.2% of
annual market share in 2018. Nine states signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with California
to implement a ZEV mandate, requiring manufacturers to earn a specified number of credits for selling
electric vehicles (BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs), depending on the total number of vehicles sold. In this
report, “MOU states” refers to California and the nine other states (Connecticut, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont). In the MOU states in 2018,
13

ATVs represented 7.0% of the annual market share, while BEVs and FCEVs combined represented 2.5%
of the market share. ATV market share is greatest in California, where they represented approximately
9.8% of all vehicles registered in the state between 2013 and 2018, and approximately 12% in 2018 alone.
All of the MOU states have an ATV market share of about 3% or greater between 2013 and 2018.
The standard federal reference used to forecast the future ATV market share is the Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO) prepared by the EIA. The EIA produces the AEO in accordance with the DOE
Organization Act of 1977, which requires the EIA to prepare annual reports on trends and projections for
energy use and supply. The AEO prepares future fleet forecasts for the AEO’s primary forecast for future
energy demand (the “reference” case), which assumes that trend improvement in known technologies
continue, along with best estimates of economic and demographic trends. The AEO’s forecasts assume
that laws and regulations in effect at the time of reporting remain unchanged. Assumptions applied in the
AEO forecast can be found in U.S. EIA 2019b and 2019c. According to the AEO estimate, approximately
41.0 million HEVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs vehicles will be in use by 2040 (U.S. EIA 2019a).
The AEO forecasts that, by 2040, the majority of ATVs are expected to be BEVs (56%), followed by
HEVs (29%), and PHEVs (13%). BEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs are forecast to comprise 7.4%, 4.8%, and
2.0%, respectively, of the total light-duty vehicle population. Only 2% of ATVs are expected to be
FCEVs, and less than half a percent of all light-duty vehicles (Figure 2) (U.S. EIA 2019a).
The AEO represents the standard federal government reference in forecasting both energy demand and
ATV vehicle population; the MA3T is also calibrated to the AEO. Two other private organizations
prepare comprehensive national forecasts of light-duty ATV population and sales: Navigant Consulting
and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The Bloomberg forecast for ATV population, which covers a
period that includes the analysis year used in this research effort (2040), is approximately 60 million
BEV, PHEV, or FCEV vehicles by 2040 (Bloomberg New Energy Finance 2018). For contrast, the AEO
forecasts 27 million BEV, PHEV, and FCEV by 2040—less than half the Bloomberg forecast (U.S. EIA
2019a). The Navigant forecast also suggests larger growth in the ATV population than is true of the AEO,
with a forecast of approximately 1.4 million ATV sales in 2026 (Electrify America 2019). Electrify
America relies on Navigant Consulting’s forecasts when determining the best use of a planned $2 billion
nationwide investment.
14

100% 30
90%
25
80%
Number of Vehicles (Millions)

Percentage of Total ATVs
70%
20
60%
50% 15
40%
10
30%
20%
5
10%
0% 0
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
HEV PHEV BEV FCEV All ATVs
Figure 2. Light-Duty ATV Stock by Vehicle Type.

Data Source: EIA 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. EIA 2019a).
2.3 FACTORS AFFECTING ATV ADOPTION

2.3.1 Consumer Preferences
Consumer uptake of ATVs is influenced by a number of factors. Purchasing a vehicle represents one of
the top expenditures made by individuals or households. The purchase is expected to last many years, and
in the face of uncertainty, consumers are more likely to “gravitate to the known and familiar” (National
Academies Press 2015). Regardless of the type of vehicle purchased, the top five influences of any car
purchase decision include reliability, durability, quality of workmanship, value for the money, and
manufacturer’s reputation (National Academies Press, 2015). Assuming these influences are satisfied,
consumers will consider ease of charging and battery performance when evaluating whether to purchase a
plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) (Fordham et al., 2015). However, based on a nationwide telephone survey
of adult vehicle owners, only 42% of drivers (45 million households) are strong candidates for PHEV
ownership or lease (National Academies Press 2015).
Factors affecting adoption of ATVs have been widely studied (e.g., see Rezvani et al. 2015). Based on the
literature review, key drivers encouraging ATV adoption, as well as key barriers inhibiting ATV adoption
(particularly BEVs), are identified in Table 4. These drivers and barriers are features of ATVs that make
them more or less appealing to consumers and that can be improved upon to increase their attractiveness
to consumers.
15

Table 4. Drivers and Barriers to ATV Adoption.
Primary Driver of ATV Adoption Primary Barrier to ATV Adoption
• Greater vehicle model choice and availability • Higher purchase cost

(outside of MOU states, primarily CA)
• Lack of home charging availability
• High vehicle performance and reliability
• Lack of knowledge about BEVs
• HOV lane access (such as California
• Limited vehicle range
metropolitan areas)
• Slow charging time
• Long driving range
• Lower fuel cost (combined with lower
purchase cost)
• Purchase cost parity with ICEVs due to federal
and state incentives
Secondary Driver of ATV Adoption Secondary Barrier to ATV Adoption
• Environmental benefits • Averse attitude towards new technology

• Free parking • Battery concerns (reliability, safety)
• Limited charging infrastructure availability (if
home charging is available)
Each driver and barrier is discussed in more detail below.
Drivers
• Greater vehicle choice and availability is a driver of ATV adoption. A study by the Sierra
Club found that “the average number of EVs on lots in California was nearly twice the average
number on lots in the other nine MOU states” (Sierra Club 2017). The availability of ZEVs in
California may be an important factor in explaining why that state has the highest market share of
ZEVs of any state. Vehicle choice for all areas is likely to improve in the future, as many
automakers have set aggressive goals to increase the number of EVs in their fleet (including
BMW, GM, Volvo, and Volkswagen) (California Energy Commission 2017). The availability of
more EV models on the market has been found to increase the probability of consumers choosing
an electric vehicle (EV) (Liao et al. 2017).
• Vehicle performance and reliability are foundational to an individual’s decision to consider
an EV. A Norwegian study found that drivers of all vehicle types (ICEV, PHEV, and BEV)
indicated that reliability and “best for my need” were among their top five considerations when
purchasing the vehicle. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that, at least for some consumers
who might be characterized as “early adopters” of ATVs, the metrics influencing traditional car
purchase decisions do not fully apply, or at least the relative importance of each metric may be
different. For example, despite widely reported reliability issues with some Tesla vehicles,
16

demand was expected to remain high for Tesla vehicles as of late 2018 (Consumer Reports 2019,
Linnane 2018).
• Free or reduced-fee HOV lane access is expected to be a significant factor influencing ATV
uptake in metropolitan areas with heavy traffic and high tolling costs. In 2013, HOV lane
access in California was the primary motivation for the purchase of 34% of plug-in Toyota
Priuses, 20% of Chevy Volts, and 38% of Nissan Leafs (U.S. EIA 2017). BEV buyers in Norway
were similarly motivated by the free toll-road access. Free or reduced parking benefits are less of
a driver. However, in markets without a large metropolitan area, HOV lane access is not valued
highly (U.S. EIA 2017).
• Extending the range of ZEVs drives adoption rates. Reducing so-called “range anxiety” with
longer-range ZEVs is a driver of ZEV adoption (Electrify America 2018). In addition to vehicle
price, long range (e.g., 200-mile electric range) has been identified as a key attribute that
consumers consider when deciding whether to purchase an EV (Consumers Union and Union of
Concerned Scientists 2016).
• Lower ATV fuel costs (e.g., electricity) promote ATV adoption to a point. The expectation of
lower fuel costs is a key driver of ATV adoption. Babaee et al. (2014) similarly find that gasoline
price and battery cost are the most significant factors to influence ATV deployment. The on-
board battery of PHEVs and BEVs allows vehicle owners to either offset or replace gasoline
purchases with cheaper home electricity. However, relatively low U.S. gasoline fuel costs in have
reduced the significance of this factor as of 2019. PHEV and BEV sales have been found to be
correlated with gasoline prices (National Academies Press, 2015).
• State and federal incentives are critical to promoting ATV adoption. Without incentives,
ATVs are generally more expensive compared to ICEVs. While battery technology has improved
and costs have declined, the initial vehicle purchase cost remains one of the top barriers to ATV
adoption, and incentives reduce the effective cost of ATVs (e.g., Slowik and Lutsey 2018,
Wolinetz and Axsen. 2017).
• Environmental benefits are important to early adopters, but are not primary drivers for
most consumers. Communities with higher percentages of residents that value the environment
see higher EV adoption and investment in EV infrastructure, which drives adoption rates
(Fordham et al., 2015). A pro-environment attitude influencing EV preference has been identified
by researchers, as listed in Liao et al. (2017) and cited by Rezvani et al. (2015).
Barriers
• For consumers without access to home charging, limited availability and speed of public
charging is a barrier to ATV adoption. However, the availability of public charging
infrastructure is generally not a significant concern for drivers with access to home charging,
particularly consumers in urban areas. Most PHEV/BEV owners have access to home charging,
and primarily charge their vehicles at home. For these EV owners, public charging is only
necessary for infrequent longer trips. While the availability of public charging infrastructure—
particularly fast chargers—reduces range anxiety, it is generally not a primary barrier to EV
adoption, especially for PHEVs. However, lower PEV adoption outside of rural areas is partially
17

driven by lack of charging infrastructure and additional requirements for long-distance trips (U.S.
DOE 2017).
• Consumers and auto dealers are not well educated about ATVs. Several studies discuss the
importance of increasing consumer knowledge about ATVs in driving adoption (see review
article by L. Jin and P. Slowik 2017). Perhaps equally important is the need to better educate auto
dealers and sales personnel so they are prepared to educate consumers. However, without policy
incentives aimed specifically at auto dealers, they may not promote sales of ATVs. This is in part
due to the large percentage of auto dealer profits that come from service and maintenance, as
ATVs require less service and maintenance than ICEVs (Automotive News 2017).
• BEVs with vehicle ranges less than 200 miles on a single charge present a key barrier. A
web-based survey of vehicle drivers in ten states (California and nine northeastern states) found
that a driving range of 200 miles was a top attribute (Consumers Union & Union of Concerned
Scientists, 2016).
• Aversion to new technology has been a significant barrier for potential consumers. Lin and
Greene found that consumers with low tolerance for technology risk enter the PHEV market more
slowly but gain interest as the number of PHEVs achieve higher market penetration (Lin and
Greene 2009). Others have found that technological risk reduces the probability of choosing an
EV (Liao et al. 2017). In Overcoming Barriers to Deployment of Plug-in Electric Vehicles
(National Academies Press 2015), the estimated timeframe for normal market penetration for new
technologies is approximately 10 to 15 years.
• Consumers are sensitive not only to the individual product, but also to the supporting
infrastructure (e.g., charging infrastructure). Market penetration of new technologies takes
many years, and is affected not only by the technology, but the supporting and complementary
infrastructure (The National Academies Press, 2015). This includes not only charging
infrastructure, but also factors such as amenable zoning ordinances and knowledgeable
mechanics. Coffman et al. (2016) cite many sources that found adequate charging infrastructure
to be critically important to EV adoption.
2.3.2 State and Federal Policies Influencing BEV/FCEV Adoption
ATV adoption is strongly correlated with supportive state and federal policies. Polices can be categorized
as demand-focused (provides incentives to consumers) or supply-focused (provides incentives/mandates
to automakers/dealers). Both types of incentives are important in influencing ATV adoption. Until ATVs
reach price parity with ICEVs, demand-focused policies will continue to be a key factor in ATV uptake
(Wolinetz and Axsen, 2017; Sierra Club 2017).
The Alternative Fuels Data Center provides a summary of all federal and state laws and incentives for
alternative fuels and vehicles, air quality, vehicle efficiency, and other transportation-related topics (U.S.
DOE 2019a). Similarly, the National Conference of State Legislatures tracks state incentives used to
promote hybrid and electric vehicles in a database (Hartman and Dowd 2017). This database shows that
all but four states provide support for ATVs through grants for state agencies, alternative fuel tax
exemption, rebates for EVSE, HOV lane access, tax credits for ATV infrastructure, use-tax exemptions,
purchase rebates, emission exemptions, tax exclusions, and other incentives (U.S. DOE 2019b).
18

One of the most expansive levers in use as of 2019 is the California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations
(ZEVR). Under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act, California has obtained a federal waiver to enact
vehicle emission standards that are stricter than federal standards. The ZEVR encourage BEV, FCEV, and
PHEV sales in the form of monetary penalties for manufacturers that fail to obtain the required level of
sales credits (U.S. EIA 2017). The MOU states set a collective target of at least 3.3 million BEVs,
FCEVs, and PHEVs on the road by 2025. In 2018, California set a new target of 5 million by 2030. i
High-level observations about the impact of state and federal policies are included below:
• Research suggests that state and federal policies play a substantial role in encouraging ATV
adoption. In California, with the state’s strict ZEVR, ATVs represent approximately 12% of all
ATV sales as of 2018. The annual ATV market share for new vehicle purchases across the rest of
the country and Washington D.C. was approximately 4% in 2018 (Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers 2019). Sierzchula et al. (2014) found that financial incentives positively and
significantly predicted EV adoption rates, and Rezvani et al. (2015) indicate the importance of
financial incentives in motivating consumers to purchase EVs.
• To effectively accelerate ATV adoption, states may need to consider a broader mix of
incentives. While consumer tax rebates or discounts are favored in 2019, survey findings suggest
that they may not be sufficient to encourage ATV adoption. Based on survey participants’ lack of
familiarity with consumer-oriented incentives, the Sierra Club encourages policy makers to
consider grants and incentives for businesses (and particularly dealerships), municipalities, and
government agencies in order to encourage more widespread adoption (Sierra Club 2017).
• A combination of supply- and demand-focused policies are needed to substantially increase
EV market penetration. Wolinetz and Axsen (2017) emphasize that a combination of strong
demand and supply-focused policies are necessary to dramatically increase PEV adoption.
Demand-focused policies are important to reducing the upfront purchase cost until EVs reach
price parity with ICEVs and consumers become more familiar with the technology. However,
supply-focused polices are key to increasing the variety and availability of PEVs. Based on their
model, strong demand-focused policies will not result in new market penetration beyond 17 to
28% by 2030, while a combination of demand- and supply-focused policies will result in a market
penetration between 38 to 49%.
• Individual state markets may be slow to react to new rebate programs and other state
incentives. In Analysis of the Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicle Policies: State-Level Incentives
and the California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations, monthly sales of ATVs in certain states
show no clear response to the introduction of a rebate program (U.S. EIA 2017).
• Dealers may not be well-informed about the incentives available at the state level. A survey
conducted by Sierra Club volunteers revealed that about 33% of the time, the salesperson did not
discuss federal and state tax credits and rebates available to reduce the cost of a ZEV or PHEV
(Sierra Club 2017).
• An ATV mandate does not necessarily correspond to availability for ATVs. The survey
conducted by Sierra Club volunteers found ZEVs were 2.5 times more likely to be found on
dealership lots in California compared with dealership lots in the eight other MOU states. (Sierra
Club 2017).
19

• States that offer the largest tax credits to offset the price of ATVs in 2019 do not have the
largest market share of ATVs. For example, as of 2019, Colorado offered the highest incentives
for ATV purchases of any state, with incentives valued at approximately $7,500 for a BEV, but
ATVs have a relatively low market share in that state (about 5% in 2018). Conversely, California
has by far the highest ATV market share (12% in 2018) but not the highest valued incentives
(valued at approximately $3,000 for a BEV). Sierzchula et al. (2014) found that financial
incentives do not guarantee high adoption of EVs. The valuation of state-level ATV incentives
was not well correlated with market share of ATVs (U.S. EIA 2017). No information was
available on how a mix of incentives would affect ATV adoption in specific states, and this is an
uncertainty that could be investigated.
2.3.3 Technology Characteristics
Two of the most critical factors for ATV market penetration are the cost considerations and risk
associated with new technology. Because purchasing a vehicle is one of the most expensive purchases
made by individuals and households, the research suggests that concerns about technology present a
substantial barrier for adoption (National Academies Press 2015). Key barriers to adoption are
technology-driven, and include:
• Battery safety concerns
• Consumer lack of knowledge and uncertainty
• High cost
• Lack of charging infrastructure
• Limited driving range
• Limited model availability
• Long charging time
• Uncertain battery life
Key factors to consider with regard to the role of technology in ATV adoption include the following:
• The cost of the battery is the single largest barrier to ATV adoption. EV batteries make up a
large portion of an EV’s total value (e.g., see ICCT 2019, Environmental and Energy Study
Institute 2017). In Promoting the Market for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles: Role
of Recharge Availability (2012), Lin and Greene argue that of all factors considered in the MA3T
model V20190404, technological advancement that reduces battery cost would have the largest
impact on increasing ATV sales. This is particularly true when access to home recharging is
improved. No Free Ride to Zero-Emissions (Sykes and Axsen 2017) observes that three of the
most critical factors that lead to a region’s ability to achieve GHG targets through ATV purchases
include (1) the degree to which consumers perceive varying lifecycle costs for the same
technology (i.e., the likelihood that consumers will select the vehicle with the lowest lifecycle
costs); (2) BEV capital cost progress ratio (i.e., the rate at which capital costs decline every time a
technology’s cumulative production increases); and (3) exogenous capital cost decline rate (i.e.,
the rate at which capital costs decline regardless of cumulative production). In The Road Ahead
for Zero-Emission Vehicles in California, price was also considered a critical factor (Beacon
Economics 2018). In Review of Hybrid, Plug-In Hybrid, and Electric Vehicle Market Modeling
Studies, the authors note that ATV adoption was found to be sensitive to technology and
ownership cost, particularly when ICEV operation cost was high (Al-Alawi and Bradley 2013).
20

• Battery costs continue to decline at a fast rate. Researchers have found that between 2010 and
2016, battery cost declined by 19.5% per year, and that costs will continue to decline by 9.7% per
year between 2016 and 2025, and by 7.7% per year between 2025 and 2030 (Beacon Economics
2018). Coffman et al. (2016) also cite a large drop in battery costs. However, supply chain issues
with battery inputs (such as lithium, cobalt, and graphite) could lead to a slowdown in battery
price decline (Beacon Economics 2018).
2.3.4 Infrastructure Initiatives
EVSE is no longer a rarity in the United States. The Alternative Fuels Data Center compiles a database
that lists 33,615 stations in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico in
2019. Fuels available include biodiesel, compressed natural gas, ethanol, electricity, hydrogen, liquefied
natural gas, and liquefied petroleum gas (U.S. DOE 2019a). The ten states in the database with the largest
number of electric stations and chargers are listed in Table 5. Together, the top ten states represent
approximately 59% of all electric charging stations in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The
database indicates that only one state has more than five hydrogen fueling stations: California, with 44
hydrogen refueling stations (both private and public).
Table 5. Electric Stations and Public Electric Charger Counts by State (2019).
State Public Stations Public Chargers Private Private
Stations Chargers
California 5,057 19,555 668 2,739
Florida 1,138 2,921 175 398
New York 1,167 2,686 100 181
Texas 1,114 3,045 124 279
Washington 873 2,356 102 247
Georgia 765 2,316 69 104
Colorado 676 1,814 58 145
Oregon 618 1,490 70 125
Virginia 571 1,346 98 245
Maryland 586 1,578 82 192
Total (all 50 states and D.C.) 12,565 39,107 1,546 4,655
Source: U.S. DOE 2019c
The Alternative Fuels Data Center also provides an extensive list of federal and state laws and incentives,
including nearly 300 incentives/regulations that support truck stop electrification or fueling infrastructure
(U.S. DOE 2019b). Several high-profile future or ongoing investments include the following:
• As of 2019, the three Investor Owned Utilities in California (Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E],
Southern California Edison [SCE], and San Diego Gas & Electric [SDG&E]) are in the process of
implementing pilot programs to support EVSE at multi-unit dwellings, workplaces, and public
interest destinations pursuant to California SB 350. The utility pilots will install infrastructure for
21

up to 12,500 stations at a cost of $197 M. This pilot program places particular emphasis on
disadvantaged communities, and up to 10% of total funding will be allocated to these
communities (California Public Utilities Commission 2018, Beacon Economics 2018).
• Electrify America will spend $800 million in California and $1.2 billion outside of California as
part of the Partial Consent Decree entered by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California in 2016 (note that Electrify America was established by VW in the wake of the VW
“dieselgate” scandal and its subsequent settlement agreements). Through Electrify America’s
second investment cycle (July 2019 through December 2021), Electrify America plans to deploy
approximately 215 electric charging facilities outside of California, and at least 2,610 electric
charging facilities within California. This effort will be coordinated with state agencies to
supplement, not duplicate, other EVSE initiatives underway, and the stations will be “future-
proofed” to the greatest extent possible to ensure that stations can be converted from 150 kW to
320 kW by the end of the 4th cycle (i.e., the end of quarter four of 2026) (Electrify America 2018,
2019).
• Assembly Bill 118 in California created the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle
Technology Program (ARFVTP), which has funded 39% of statewide total public charging sites
and 38% of charging outlets (Beacon Economics 2018).
• The FHWA has unveiled the National Alternative Fuel and Electric Charging Network which, as
of 2019, included 100 interstate corridors across 46 states where electric, hydrogen, propane, and
natural gas fueling stations are available (“corridor ready”) or in progress (“corridor pending”)
(U.S. FHWA 2019).
• The West Coast Electric Highway (alternately, the West Coast Green Highway) is an initiative to
establish a network of EV direct current (DC) fast charging stations (DCFC) located every 25 to
50 miles along Interstate 5, Hwy 99, and other major roadways in British Columbia, Washington,
Oregon, and California. The initiative is a collection of projects, funding sources, and partners
with the same vision—to provide a network of fast charging stations enabling electric vehicle
drivers to make longer trips and travel between cities (Washington State Department of
Transportation 2014).
• Regional Electric Vehicle Plan for the West (REV West) is an initiative by the States of
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to make it possible to
drive an electric vehicle across the signatory states’ major transportation corridors. The initial
transportation corridors include Interstates 25, 70 and 76 in Colorado; Interstates 15, 84, 86, and
90 in Idaho; Interstates 15, 90 and 94 in Montana; Interstates 15 and 80 in Nevada; Interstates 10,
25 and 40 in New Mexico; Interstates 15, 70, 80 and 84 in Utah; and Interstates 25, 80 and 90 in
Wyoming (State of Colorado et al. 2017).
The relative importance of these infrastructure initiatives varies depending on the type of vehicle and
length of the driver’s typical trip. Some key observations include the following:
• Public charging may not be valued highly by PHEV owners. Lin and Greene (2009) observe
in A Plug-in Hybrid Consumer Choice Model with Detailed Market Segmentation that the value
of public charging to PHEV owners is difficult to quantify because recharging is not required for
use of the vehicle. However, the authors found that the overall market success of PHEVs appears
22

to be driven by recharging availability, consumers’ attitudes towards novel technologies, and

vehicle-usage intensity.
• Satisfying the demand for long-distance BEV charging facilities may not require substantial
additional investment. National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Analysis (Electrify
America 2017) suggests that (1) relatively few direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations would
be required to satisfy long-distance BEV travel between U.S. cities, and (2) that number is similar
to the number of corridor-located DCFC stations already established by Tesla or planned by
Electrify America.
• The availability of chargers appears to be a stronger driver for ATV adoption along the
west coast, which is also an area with a relatively developed network of charging stations
(U.S. EIA, 2017).
2.4 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
This literature review summarizes historical ATV data, ATV adoption forecasts, and available
information and data on the key factors (consumer preferences, technology, policy, and infrastructure)
affecting adoption of ATVs. Examples of the key factors identified in the literature review are
summarized in Table 6. The table indicates the relative importance of each factor example, and whether it
is an input for the MA3T model. The majority of example factors with high importance are included in the
MA3T model, which will be useful for establishing ATV adoption rates under various scenarios.
An important finding in this literature review was the significance of policy incentives that can be
considered as either supply- or demand-focused. State and federal-level incentives provide strong support
for ATVs, with all but four states providing at least some support for ATVs through grants for state
agencies, alternative fuel tax exemption, rebates for EVSE, HOV lane access, tax credits for ATV
infrastructure, use-tax exemptions, purchase rebates, emission exemptions, tax exclusions, and other
incentives. These incentives are demand-focused, and though they may be highly valued, there is mixed
evidence that consumers are well-informed of their existence.
On the whole, the literature suggests that for ATV adoption to play a large role in emission reduction, cost
will play the largest role. Supply-focused polices are key to increasing the variety and availability of
ATVs. While ZEV regulations are in place in California and other states that require manufacturers to
achieve certain sales quotas on ATVs, grants and incentives for businesses (and particularly dealerships),
municipalities, and government agencies may be necessary to encourage more widespread adoption. As
consumers become better informed of available incentives and the technology behind ATVs, market share
is expected to continue to increase.
The key factors presented in this literature review and summarized in Table 6 present the basic inputs for
quantifying future ATV adoption. The forecasts for ATV sales and the trends in technology
advancements, policies and programs, and EVSE identified in this literature review were used to develop
inputs for the MA3T model. The impacts on emissions reductions is covered in detail in Chapter 4.
23

Table 6. Summary of key factors affecting ATV adoption and their relative importance.
Driver of ATV Adoption Relative MA3T MA3T Factor

Importance Parameter
High Vehicle Performance and Reliability Higha No Consumer
HOV Lane Access High Yes Policy
Long Driving Range High Yes Technology
Purchase Cost Parity with ICEVs (due to High Yes Policy,

federal and state incentives) Technology
Free Parking Medium Yes Policy
Lower Fuel (e.g., Electricity) Cost (combined Medium Yes Infrastructure

with lower purchase cost)
Environmental Benefits Low No NAb
Barrier to ATV Adoption Relative MA3T MA3T Factor

Importance Parameter
Higher Purchase Cost High Yes Technology
Lack of Home Charging High Yes Consumer,

Infrastructure
Lack of Knowledge about BEVs High No Consumer
Limited Vehicle Model Choice and High No Technology

Availability
Limited Vehicle Range High Yes Technology
Negative Attitude Towards New Technology High Yes Consumer
Battery Concerns (reliability, safety) Medium No Consumer
Limited Charging Infrastructure Availability Lowc Yes Infrastructure

(if home charging is available)
Slow Charging Time Low No Infrastructure

a
HOV lane access is not a primary driver for markets without a large metropolitan area.
b
NA = not applicable.
c
This factor has high relative importance for those without access to home chargers.
24

CHAPTER 3 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS

Findings from the literature review were used to develop analysis scenarios. Collectively, the scenarios
bracket a broad range of potential future ZEV fleet changes that can be used to support transportation
agencies in planning for potential outcomes beyond ZEV adoption rates in 2019. The scenarios require
specification of key factors (e.g., net vehicle cost and availability of electric vehicle charging stations)
linked to ZEV adoption rates. The feasibility of adequately representing quantitative changes to the
vehicle fleet in each scenario was considered when selecting scenarios to carry forward for analysis of
emissions reductions due to changes in ZEV adoption as estimated by MA3T for the scenarios. The Base
Case is assumed to be a business as usual scenario with no changes in trends for policy, consumer,
technology, and infrastructure factors that are assumed in MA3T V20190404. For this project, MA3T was
calibrated to the 2019 AEO, which accounts for key laws and regulations in effect in 2019.
The following sections describe (1) a comparison of future ZEV adoption from MA3T and two other data
sources, (2) details about the MA3T model and justification for its use in the analysis, and (3) the ZEV
adoption scenarios selected for subsequent analysis.
3.1 OVERVIEW OF THE MA3T MODEL
MA3T is a comprehensive consumer choice model that can be used to estimate ATV populations. The
model was created in Microsoft Excel® and its methodology is described in detail in Lin and Greene,
2009. Briefly, the model constructs its forecasts by integrating several behavioral models with certain
known technology, infrastructure, and policy parameters. The model disaggregates the household market
into thousands of segments representing geographic area, area type, attitudes towards technology risk,
vehicle use intensity, and recharging access. Additional resources for the model can be found on the
ORNL Transportation Energy Evolution Modeling (TEEM) website (https://teem.ornl.gov/ma3t.shtml).
The latest version of the model is calibrated to total light-duty vehicle sales data obtained from the U.S.
DOE Energy Information Administration’s 2019 AEO, which covers a projection period of 2019 to 2050
(U.S. EIA 2019a). The model forecasts populations of light-duty vehicles across 20 powertrain
technologies (e.g., spark ignition conventional cars, fuel cell hybrid electric cars, and battery electric cars
with 200-mile range) and five vehicle classes (i.e., cars, car sport utility vehicles [SUV], pickups, truck-
SUVs, and vans). It also includes more than 40 input parameters that represent key factors affecting ZEV
adoption, all of which can be specified to predict light-duty vehicle populations for various ZEV adoption
scenarios. The parameters fit into five categories:
• Attributes and behaviors of consumers
• ATV policies and programs
• Cost, characteristics, and performance of ATVs
• Energy prices
• Refueling and recharging availability
MA3T has previously been used in analyses of future light-duty vehicle markets under different
assumptions about future vehicle technologies and market conditions to support the DOE Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office. Work related to the
development of MA3T includes the assessment of the impact of charging infrastructure, range
optimization, DOE targets for hydrogen fuel cell vehicle adoption, and energy and power grid impacts.
25

Numerous peer-reviewed articles on work using MA3T have been published (e.g., Lin and Greene 2011,
Greene et al. 2013, Lin et al. 2013, Farzaneh et al. 2014, Podkaminer et al. 2017, Lin and Liu 2014).
3.2 MA3T AND PROJECTIONS OF FUTURE ATV SALES AND POPULATIONS
To further investigate future ZEV adoption beyond the market share forecasts identified in the literature
review, data was compiled from (1) the 2019 AEO (U.S. EIA 2019a), (2) the ATV Sales Dashboard, and
(3) the MA3T model V20190404 using default values for model inputs.
The assumptions applied to MA3T from the AEO forecast can be found in U.S. EIA 2019b and 2019c;
assumptions applied in the MA3T model can be found in Lin and Greene 2009 and Lin and Greene 2012.
An important aspect of the AEO forecast is the incorporation of California’s Zero-Emission Vehicles
program into the transportation module. The Zero-Emissions Vehicles program was also adopted by the
nine other MOU states. In the 2016 update to the ZEV program, the required percentage of credits earned
by automobile manufacturers for BEV, PHEV and FCEV sales increases from 4.5% for model year 2018
to 22% for model years 2025 and beyond. The number of credits for each vehicle sale depends on the
vehicle type and technology, where vehicles with longer battery range count for more credits. In addition,
the AEO forecast accounts for the California corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards (also
adopted by several other states), which (as of 2019) extend until 2025 with its current requirements. These
aspects of the AEO forecast are carried over to the MA3T model, which is calibrated to the AEO with
respect to total light-duty vehicle sales. However, the sales of ATVs estimated by MA3T are not limited
by the number of sales in the AEO forecast because of several key feedback assumptions: for any year,
ATV sales in MA3T are affected by sales from the previous year through (1) supply constraint
parameters, (2) learning by doing parameters, (3) make and model availability parameters, and (4)
consumer attitude parameters, such as perceived technological risk. Furthermore, sales in any year affect
the availability and power of charging infrastructure in the following year.
As Figure 3 shows, MA3T predicts fewer annual BEV sales than the AEO does between 2018 and 2029,
but much greater sales between 2030 and 2050. The large increase in sales from MA3T is likely a result of
the internal feedback loops. A few features of the growth in BEV sales for both forecasts reflect some key
assumptions, effects of MA3T’s feedback loops, and real-world milestones:
• The AEO forecast shows a “leveling off” of the rate of increase in BEV sales in 2025
o The California ZEV program requirement of a 22% credit percentage does not change
after 2025, and
o The CAFE standards (as of 2019) extend until 2025, at which time they will be
revaluated.
• MA3T assumes no availability of public charging until 2017, and roughly a doubling of
availability between 2017 and 2050, although the sales seem slow to respond to the initial public
charging availability.
• MA3T predicts relatively slow growth in BEV sales between 2017 and 2025, during which period
the model assumes no change in home and workplace charging availability.
• The MA3T model shows growth in sales of BEVs becoming relatively steep beginning around
2025 (2025 is the first of two “Year Points” in MA3T, between which home charging power
doubles).
26

• MA3T estimates that the growth in sales will begin to slow in 2030, which happens to be the
target year for a goal of 5 million PHEVs, BEVs, and FCEVs on the road in California. This goal
spurred the ZEV program, though it is not clear if the goal is accounted for in the AEO forecast
and carried over to MA3T.
• The rate of increase in BEV sales forecasted by the two models is similar between 2035 and
2045, at which time the growth in sales estimated by MA3T seems to reach an inflection point.
• In general, by 2050, MA3T assumes that home, workplace, and public charging availability and
power reach levels much greater than what is assumed for the first year of its modeling period
(i.e., 2005), and the feedback loops appear to maximize BEV sales between 2045 and 2050, the
end of the model’s forecast period.
5,000
BEV Sales (thousands of vehicles)
4,500 MA3T
4,000 AEO
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2017
2019
2021
2023
2025
2027
2029
2031
2033
2035
2037
2039
2041
2043
2045
2047
2049
Figure 3. Forecasted Annual BEV sales from MA3T V20190404 and the 2019 AEO.
Data Sources: MA3T V20190404 and EIA 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. EIA 2019a).
Figure 4 shows historical ZEV populations in 2017 and estimates ii of ZEV populations in 2040 using the
three data sources. The 2017 historical ZEV populations are roughly the same across the three data
sources. Based on the data from these three sources, the total ZEV on-road light-duty vehicle population
is forecasted to reach approximately 22 to 25 million vehicles by 2040. Using cumulative sales to project
future sales based on ATV historical annual sales (as tracked in the ATV Sales Dashboard) produces
approximately 1.5 million more ZEVs than is forecast by the 2019 AEO, but the cumulative sales
approach may be overestimating the population because vehicle scrappage is not accounted for. MA3T
estimates a population of 3.7 million more ZEVs in 2040 than estimated in the AEO, and 2.3 million
more ZEVs in 2040 than estimated from the ATV Sales Dashboard data.
27

These differences are likely a result of the different assumptions used in estimating the future ZEV
populations. These differences include (1) the AEO forecast includes the ZEV regulations adopted by
California and the other MOU states; (2) MA3T includes feedback loops, such as the previous year’s sales
volumes by technology affecting the number of makes and models available for each technology, and a
survival rate parameter for each technology representing scrappage of older vehicles; and (3) the
cumulative sales estimated from the ATV Sales Dashboard does not include vehicle scrappage. The
default input values in the MA3T model represent the assumption that no FCEVs are on the market during
the modeling period (2005 through 2050), while the AEO projects a population of nearly 1 million
FCEVs in 2040. Nevertheless, MA3T produces an estimate of BEV population that outweighs the lack of
FCEVs when compared to the total AEO population of ZEVs. The populations estimated by MA3T differ
from the AEO projection by 17% and from the ATV Dashboard estimate by 9%. These relatively small
differences support confidence in using the MA3T model for estimating ZEV populations for the analysis
scenarios and subsequent estimations of emissions reductions.
2017 U.S. ZEV Population (millions) 2040 Projected U.S. ZEV Population
4 40 (millions)
AEO Auto Alliance MA3T
AEO Auto Alliance MA3T
3 30
2 20
1 10
0 0
BEV FCEV Total ZEV BEV FCEV Total ZEV
Figure 4. Historical (2017) and projected (2040) ZEV populations using three different data
sources.
Data Sources: EIA 2019 Annual Energy Outlook (U.S. EIA 2019a); Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers 2019; MA3T V20190404.
3.3 ZEV FLEET ASSUMPTIONS IN THE MOVES MODEL

While MOVES2014 iii can model electric vehicles, the market share of electric vehicles was sufficiently
small when the model was released (2018) that the default electric vehicle population is effectively zero
in the model. MOVES2014 allows users to model an EV population by providing market share
information for EVs. EVs do not have exhaust emissions, but MOVES2014 does have energy
consumption, brake wear, and tire wear rates for EVs (EV brake wear and tire wear rates are assumed to
be the same as those of gasoline vehicles). With customized market share information, MOVES2014 can
model energy consumption and brake wear and tire wear emissions from EVs (U.S. EPA 2014).
3.4 SUMMARY OF ZEV ADOPTION SCENARIOS
The ZEV adoption scenarios are foundational to the emissions analysis work in this project. As found
during the literature review, ZEV adoption varies as a result of a variety of factors, including the cost of
28

technology, access to HOV lanes, availability of charging infrastructure, and availability of incentives.
Four key scenarios were developed where changes in the underlying factors would likely result in the
largest changes in ZEV adoption. These four scenarios were used in order to estimate (1) future ZEV
populations using the MA3T model V20190404, and (2) the corresponding reduction in exhaust emissions
as a result of the increase in ZEVs. The selected scenarios are summarized in Table 7, which includes the
scenario IDs and a brief name and description for each scenario. In addition to the Base Case scenario,
used as a reference point, three alternative scenarios were developed to reflect the key factors affecting
ZEV adoption that were identified in the literature review. Those three scenarios represent a combination
of both likely scenarios (e.g., accelerated achievement of cost parity) and scenarios that may be more
directly influenced by transportation agencies (e.g., substantial expansion of infrastructure).
Although AEO forecasts, projections from the ATV Sales Dashboard, and MA3T estimates use different
assumptions in estimating ZEV populations, the relative similarity of ZEV populations in 2017 and 2040
between the three data sources provides confidence in use of the MA3T model for this study to estimate
future ZEV populations for further analysis in this study.
The various parameters in the MA3T model that were adjusted, and the adjustment values used in each
simulation are summarized in Chapter 4.
Table 7. ZEV adoption scenarios for modeling in MA3T and estimating emissions
reductions.
Scenario ID Scenario Name and Key Concepts
B Base Case
Business as usual.
I Substantial Expansion of Infrastructure

Expansion of EVSE beyond recent and pending improvements.
P Advanced Use of Incentives/Policy

Wide implementation of high-impact incentives policies/programs.
C Accelerated Achievement of Cost Parity

Accelerated reduction of vehicle costs and increased fuel costs.
29

CHAPTER 4 MODELING ASSUMPTIONS AND RESULTS

With the addition of one MA3T simulation for the Base Case analysis scenario, 16 sets of simulations
were conducted for analysis of emissions changes due to advanced adoption of ZEVs. Each of the
simulation sets consist of three separate simulations (with “Low”, “Medium”, and “High” parameter
adjustment), which allowed further analysis of the sensitivity of MA3T to changes in input parameters.
All of the simulations (a total of 49), including the parameters adjusted and the magnitude of parameter
adjustments, are summarized in Table 8.
Information gathered in the literature review completed for this project was used to inform the selection
of which MA3T parameters to adjust, and, to the extent possible, the magnitude of the parameter
adjustments made in the ZEV adoption scenario simulations. For example, the availability of public
charging stations was based on data from the Electrify America National ZEV Plans. The assumptions
made for each set of parameter adjustments are described in the next section.
In general, the parameter adjustments for the infrastructure (I) scenarios are informed by more
quantitative information compared to the Incentive/Policy (P) and cost parity (C) scenarios, for which
quantitative projection data are lacking. A more generalized approach was used for many of those
scenario simulations. In general, large parameter adjustments were used to better understand the relative
importance of each parameter within the MA3T consumer choice model. These parameter adjustments do
not necessarily reflect a likely future condition, but rather a possible future condition given technology
and known investments in 2019. The largest parameter adjustments were used to demonstrate the largest
possible increases in ZEV adoption given technology that is currently feasible. The analysis is not
intended to make a case for any particular future outcome, but to illustrate the effect of each scenario on
future emissions.
Infrastructure parameters in MA3T include charging availability and power for specific “year points.”
There are four year points, and the first (Year #1) and last (Year #4) points correspond with the first and
last years in the MA3T modeling period (2005 and 2050). Based on the calibration of the model, the first
and last year points should not be adjusted and the model must be run for the entire modeling period. Data
for any years within that period can be selected for analysis. Although the analysis year for this study is
2040, parameter adjustments for the infrastructure simulations are only made relative to Year #4 (2050),
as seen in Table 8. Furthermore, adjustments cannot be made to default year points with default years
prior to 2019 without recalibration of the model, which is outside the scope of this work.
30

Table 8. MA3T parameter adjustments for ZEV adoption scenario simulations.
Simulation
MA3T Parameters Adjusted Parameter Adjustment Values
Set ID
B No changes to default MA3T input No changes to default MA3T input parameters

parameters
I1 Public Charging Availability Low: Only values for CA adjusted (1.5x

default values for central city and suburb; 2x
Defaults: 0% for year points #1 and #2
for rural)
(2005 and 2011); variable by area for year
points #3 and #4 (2017 and 2050) Medium: Midpoint between high and low
adjustment ([100% plus default] / 2) for Year
#4 (2050)
High: 100% availability by Year #4 (2050)
I2 Public Charging Power Level Low: No change

Defaults: 0 kW for Year #1 (2005); 3.0 kW Medium: Midpoint between high and low
for Year #2 (2011); 11 kW (central city adjustment (181 kW) for all areas by Year #4
and suburb) and 3.0 kW (rural) for Year #3 (2050)
(2017); 11 kW for Year #4 (2050)
High: 350 kW for all areas by Year #4 (2050)
I3 Home Charging Availability Low: No change

Defaults: variable by area and year point Medium: Midpoint between high and low
adjustment ([100% plus default] / 2) for Year
#4 (2050)
High: 100% for all areas by Year #4 (2050)
I4 Home Charging Power Level Low: No change

Defaults: 1.1 kW for Year #1 (2005); 2.0 Medium: 19.2 kW for all areas by Year #4
kW for Year #2 (2011); 3.0 kW for Year (2050)
#3 (2025); 6.0 kW for Year #4 (2050)
High: Same as medium adjustment
I5 Workplace Charging Availability Low: No change

Defaults: 5% for all areas and year points Medium: Midpoint between high and low
adjustment (53%) for Year #4 (2050)
High: 100% availability by Year #4 (2050)
I6 Workplace Charging Power Level Low: No change
31

Simulation
Set ID
Defaults: 1.1 kW for Year #1 (2005); 2.0 Medium: Midpoint between high and low
kW for Year #2 (2011); 3.0 kW for Year adjustment (177 kW) for Year #4
#3 (2025); 3.0 kW for Year #4 (2050)
High: 350 kW for all areas by Year #4 (2050)
P1 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Low: 300,000 vehicles cap and $3,500
(ARRA) Max # Vehicles per original maximum subsidy
equipment manufacturer (OEM) combined
Medium: 400,000 vehicles cap and $3,500
with Maximum Subsidy
maximum subsidy
Default: 200,000 vehicles cap, and $7,500
High: 600,000 vehicles cap and $3,500
maximum subsidy
maximum subsidy
P2 ARRA Number of OEM Producing ZEVs Low: 17

Default: 8 Medium: 20
High: 25
P3 State Rebate Amount Low: 1.1x default

Defaults: variable by state Medium: 1.25x default
High: 1.5x default
P4 State Rebate Duration Low: 10 years (default start year)

Default: 5 year duration (2011 start year) Medium: 15 years (default start year)
High: 20 years (default start year)
P5 Rebate Amount and Duration Applied to Low: Median rebate ($2,500) and 10-year
Other States duration
Defaults: no rebates Medium: Median rebate ($2,500) and 15-year
High: Median rebate ($2,500) and 20-year
duration
P6 HOV Lane Access Duration Low: 10 years (default start year)

Default: 5 years (2014 start year) Medium: 12 years (default start year)
High: 15 years (default start year)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost Low: Unsubsidized vehicle manufacturer cost

parity between ZEVs with ICEVs
Defaults: variable by vehicle class and
counterparts by category in 2040
powertrain, and by analysis year
32

Simulation
Set ID
Medium: Unsubsidized vehicle manufacturer
cost parity between ZEVs with ICEVs
High: Unsubsidized vehicle manufacturer cost
parity between ZEVs with ICEVs
C2 Gasoline Price Low: A minimum rate of increase

($0.05/year) slightly lower than the increase
Defaults: variable by region and analysis
in annual average price from U.S EIA data
year
between 2002 and 2019, applied to all regions
beginning in 2019
Medium: Rate of increase ($0.07/year) for
annual average price from U.S. EIA data
beginning in 2019
High: A maximum rate of increase
($0.10/year) slightly higher than the increase
in annual average price from U.S. EIA data
beginning in 2019
C3 Diesel Fuel Price Low: A minimum rate of increase

($0.05/year) slightly lower than the increase
Defaults: variable by region and analysis
year
beginning in 2019
Medium: Rate of increase ($0.08/year) for
annual average price from U.S. EIA data
beginning in 2019
High: A maximum rate of increase
($0.10/year) slightly higher than the increase
beginning in 2019
33

4.1 ASSUMPTIONS FOR INFRASTRUCTURE SCENARIOS

A range of infrastructure scenarios that reflect likely changes in charging availability in public,
workplace, and home locations were considered. First, it was validated that baseline inputs in MA3T were
similar to “current” (i.e., approximately 2018) conditions, which was generally found to be the case.
However, in looking at future years, the team found that MA3T’s assumptions with regard to
infrastructure availability were generally conservative. The team did not make modifications to
assumptions where there was limited evidence that conditions would change in the future, but rather left
those factors as controls. Ultimately, six simulation sets that focused on changes to infrastructure
available for charging electric vehicles were developed.
4.1.1 Public charging availability assumptions (I1 simulations)
MA3T defines “public charging availability” as the ratio of the number of charging stations to the number
of gasoline stations, expressed as a percentage. Charging availability is intended to indicate that drivers of
electric vehicles have approximately equal access to charging stations as drivers of gasoline powered
vehicles have to gas stations. Full public charging availability is the estimated density of EVSE necessary
to fully meet demand for public electric vehicle charging, (i.e., offer equal refueling opportunities to BEV
owners as gasoline powered vehicle owners). Less than 100% availability is a proxy for the percentage of
demand that is met
The model includes availability for three area types: central city, suburb, and rural locations. Model
developers were not able to share proprietary data for model inputs; in 2019, the percentage availability
set within MA3T was equal to approximately 27% in both central city and suburb locations across all
states. For rural locations, availability is set to 5% for all states.
This approach was used to estimate the relative magnitude of planned EVSE rollout. To estimate the
number of gasoline stations, the number of establishments classified under National American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) sub-sector 447 (gasoline stations) by state, using the 2016 County
Business Patterns (United States Census 2018) were found. The number of public charging stations by
state was obtained from the U.S. DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center (United States DOE 2019c). These
estimates were used (1) as a baseline from which to estimate the magnitude of planned expansions of
electric charging stations across the U.S., and (2) to inform adjustments to the percentage of public
charging availability in 2050. The number of electric stations (stations may include multiple chargers,
although the capacity of charging stations may not equal that of a gas station) and gas stations is included
in Table A-1 in Appendix A Supplemental Data.
Several key initiatives informed the review of estimated increase in public charging stations: the
initiatives planned by Electrify America, subsidies provided by California investor owned utilities (IOUs)
and planned “electric” transportation corridors. The largest of these initiatives is Electrify America’s
planned investments in electric charging stations. As of 2019, Electrify America has released Cycle 2
plans for spending at a national level (excluding California) and within the state of California that include
a targeted number of operational charging stations (Table A-2). Electrify America plans to deploy
approximately 3,700 stations throughout the U.S. by 2021; while these will largely be targeted to
residential users, workplaces may also be included. The rollout will also include up to 155 entirely public
chargers. The three IOUs in California—SDG&E, SCE, and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)—are also
implementing pilot programs to install infrastructure to support electric vehicle charging in workplace,
home, and public destinations as of 2019; Table A-3 lists the numbers of planned charging stations for
34

the three California utilities. An additional 12,500 electric vehicle charging stations are planned in this
IOUs initiative, of which 6,250 would be located either at homes or at workplaces. Finally, there are a
variety of regional and national initiatives to “electrify” important transportation corridors by providing
access to electric vehicle charging stations at regular intervals. The West Coast Electric Highway
Network, the Regional Electric Vehicle Plan for the West (REV West), and the National Alternative Fuel
and Electric Charging Network, cumulatively plan to build electric vehicle charging infrastructure on
approximately 92,800 miles of roadway. Conservatively assuming approximately 50 miles between
charging stations, “electrifying” this roadway would require approximately 1,900 new charging stations.
These estimates illustrate that initiatives underway at the time this report was prepared (2019) provide
strong support for electric vehicle charging infrastructure relative to the availability of gasoline stations.
However, reductions in the cost of installing EVSE and uncertainties in driver behavior make future
availability difficult to estimate. To reflect the rapid deployment of EVSE and the high degree of
uncertainty around anticipated demand, and to test the impact of charging infrastructure availability,
public charging infrastructure is set to 100% availability in 2050 for the High case in this simulation set.
This estimate is not intended to represent a forecast of future growth, but rather an upper limit of charging
availability. For the Low case, the percentage availability in 2050 is assumed to equal the minimum of
either 50% availability, or twice the default level of availability in MA3T V20190404. The default inputs
resulted in a slight decrease in future public charging availability in California, where the Low case
values were set to increase 1.5 times over default levels in the central city and suburbs, and double in
rural areas. The Medium case was assumed to be the midpoint of the high and low cases.
4.1.2 Public charging power level (I2 simulations)
In the I2 simulation set, the public charging power (expressed in kilowatts) is equal to the power available
at public charging stations. Known key parameters for this simulation set are defined by the technology
being deployed by Electrify America. Level 1 chargers generally describe household AC power, typically
with a maximum power of 1.9 kW. Level 2 chargers typically charge up to 19.2 kW. DCFCs (also
referred to as Level 3 chargers) offer the fastest charging speeds. Electrify America stations currently
deploy Level 3 DCFCs with a maximum power of 350 kW.
The parameter values for both public charging power in 2017 and public charging power in 2050 are set
within MA3T to 11 kW for central city and suburbs and 3 kW for rural areas. Based on advances in the
technology known to be underway, the High case assumes power levels of 350 kW for all area types in
2050. The Low case assumes no change from MA3T default parameters for 2050. The Medium case
assumes a midpoint between the high and low case for 2050.
4.1.3 Home charging availability (I3 simulations)
Home charging is most easily accomplished in a home garage or carport. Absent those features, home
owners or renters face additional expenses, such as added security, weather, permitting, and metering, that
must be factored into the cost of installing charging infrastructure in a residential setting.
Homeowners/renters may also choose to use a portable charging station. A key parameter in these
simulations is the availability of subsidies to homeowners/renters to install electric charging infrastructure
in homes, and the availability of solutions geared towards homeowners/renters without carports. The High
case for this parameter is assumed to equal 100% for all areas by Year #4 (2050). The Low case is
assumed to equal baseline MA3T inputs, which vary by year and area type and are developed based on
35

proprietary data that was not obtained for this study. The Medium case assumes the midpoint between the
high and low adjustments for 2050.
4.1.4 Home charging power (I4 simulations)
Home charging power is the power available at home charging stations, expressed in kilowatts. Within
MA3T, default home charging power is assumed to equal 3 kW in Year #3 (2025) and 6 kW in Year #4
(2050). L2 chargers have a maximum charge power of 19.2 kW (approximately equal to the power
required to run a clothes dryer). For the Low case, no change to the MA3T baseline assumptions was
assumed. For the Medium case, it was assumed that home chargers will have access to 19.2 kW in 2050.
However, no technology was identified during the literature review that could be used to upgrade home
infrastructure above a maximum output of 19.2 kW. The assumption for the High case was the same as in
the Medium case.
4.1.5 Workplace charging availability (I5 simulations)
Workplace charging availability may fill a gap for drivers who need to charge at their place of work
before making a return commute trip. MA3T default values assume that workplace charging availability
will be 5% for all areas and all years. For the Low case, no adjustment to MA3T default values were
made. For the High case, based on known initiatives in the rollout of charging infrastructure, it was
assumed that workplace charging ability will be 100% by 2050. The Medium case assumed the midpoint
between the high and low adjustments for 2050.
4.1.6 Workplace charging power level (I6 simulations)
Workplace charging power within MA3T is assumed to equal 3 kW in 2050. Default values were used for
the Low case. Based on the availability of technology discussed above for public charging, the High case
assumes charging power of 350 kW in 2050. This assumes that as this technology becomes more
commonplace, it will become available in most public venues, including the workplace. The Medium case
input is assumed to be the midpoint between the Low and High values.
4.2 ASSUMPTIONS FOR INCENTIVE/POLICY SCENARIOS
In the Incentive/Policy simulations, all dollar values in MA3T are measured by the purchasing power of
dollars in 2018. That is, the amounts are nominal dollars that do not account for inflation or deflation of
other past or future years relative to 2018.
4.2.1 ARRA parameter assumptions (P1 and P2 simulations)
In the P1 simulation set, the maximum cumulative number of subsidized vehicles per OEM was assumed
to represent a range of values based on recent legislative proposals. For example, the proposed Driving
America Forward Act (Congressional Research Service 2019) essentially raises the cap on the number of
subsidized vehicles from 200,000 to 600,000. For each case of the P1 simulation set, increasing caps were
assumed, and the cap was set to 600,000 for the High case. In addition to the input for the cap on vehicle
sales, the P1 simulation set also includes adjustment of the maximum subsidy per eligible vehicle.
Although the Driving America Forward Act proposes a credit of up to $7,000 for the number of vehicles
beyond the 200,000 cap, only a single subsidy value can be used in MA3T. A more conservative value
($3,500) was used in the P1 simulation set. MA3T uses nominal 2018 dollars as input for the credit
amount, but it is possible that credits would be issued in future years until a manufacturer reaches the cap
36

on vehicle sales. Test simulations where the credit amount was changed, not presented in this report,
indicated that the effect of the credit amount on future ZEV population was small.
For the P2 simulation set, the Low case value for number of OEMs producing eligible vehicles was
assumed to equal 17, which is supported by recent data (Nanalyze 2017). For the Medium case, it was
assumed that nearly all auto manufacturers (approximately 20 as of 2019) selling light-duty passenger
vehicles in the U.S. produce eligible vehicles; and for the High case it was assumed that five additional
manufacturers of ZEVs would enter the market.
4.2.2 State rebate assumptions (P3 through P5 simulations)
Simulation sets P3 and P4 relate to inputs for state rebates, and inputs were only adjusted for the 19 states
that had rebate programs beginning in 2011 (the default start year for rebates in MA3T). In fact, one
additional state (Oregon) has a rebate program that went into effect in 2018 and ends in 2024, and three
states with rebate inputs in MA3T actually have or had tax credits, not rebates (Colorado [effective 2017-
2026], Georgia [expired in 2015], and Maryland [effective 2017-2020]). A test MA3T simulation showed
that changing rebate inputs to tax credit inputs for those three states had no effect on estimated ZEV
population. Although rebates for some states actually took effect in years later than 2011, changing the
start year would require recalibration of the model. Therefore, the start year (2011) for rebates in these
simulations was not changed.
The changes to input parameters for these simulations were set arbitrarily, assuming that advanced use of
incentives would correspond to increasing the rebate amount or the duration of existing rebates. Rebate
amounts were increased by 10% for the Low case, 25% for the Medium case, and 50% for the High case.
The default rebate amounts are shown in Table A-4 in Appendix A (the default rebate duration is five
years). Rebate amounts in MA3T do not include any offsets or negative policy impacts such as states
increasing ZEV registration fees as a result of losses in gas taxes, nor are there other model inputs that
account for such factors. Rebate durations were increased in five-year increments over the Low, Medium,
and High cases up to 15 years beyond the default value for the High case.
Simulation set P5 represents the adoption of rebates by states that did not offer rebates as of 2011 (the
remaining 31 states). The inputs for this set of simulations were also set arbitrarily, using (1) the median
rebate amount across states that already offer rebates, and (2) the Low, Medium, and High adjustments to
rebate duration used in simulation set P4. The approach for parameter adjustments in this simulation set
was selected after analysis of the population change results from sets P3 and P4.
During test simulations, it was found that adjusting the amount of rebates had little impact on ZEV
populations, but adjusting the duration of rebates had a moderate impact. This could be reflective of the
fact that consumers are generally unaware of available financial incentives for the purchase of ZEVs (e.g.,
Jin and Slowik, 2017). Consumer education has been identified as an important need for increasing the
effectiveness of incentives and ZEV adoption, as demonstrated by planned investments by Electrify
America (Electrify America 2017 and 2018). In addition, states with large rebates as of 2019 do not
necessarily have correspondingly high rates of electric vehicle adoption. For the purposes of this research
project, it was decided that a simulation set resulting in a moderate impact would be more valuable than
one resulting in essentially no impact.
37

4.2.3 HOV lane access duration assumptions (P6 simulations)

The default start year for HOV lane access policy in MA3T is 2014, and the default duration is five years.
Therefore, HOV lane access for any ZEV would end in 2019 within the modeling framework. The default
start year for HOV lane access in MA3T cannot be adjusted without recalibrating the model. For the P6
simulations, it was assumed that all states with HOV lane access for ZEVs would be extended by 5 (Low
case), 7 (Medium case), and 10 (High case) years. These adjustments were informed by several studies
and research findings, including:
• In 2013, HOV lane access in California was found to be the primary motivation for the purchase
of several models of PEVs (United States Energy Information Administration 2017)
• A UCLA study asserted that access to HOV and high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes is the “single
biggest incentive” for Californians to purchase ZEVs (e.g., see Los Angeles Times 2018 and
Digital Trends 2018)
• Another UCLA study found that HOV lane access for ZEVs had no capital costs and is more cost
effective than the state’s rebate program (Sheldon and DeShazo 2016)
• California introduced a new 4-year HOV lane access incentive beginning in 2019 (California
Department of Motor Vehicles 2019).
4.3 ASSUMPTIONS FOR COST PARITY SCENARIOS
4.3.1 Vehicle manufacturer cost assumptions (C1 simulations)
In MA T, battery electric cars with a range of 100 miles reach vehicle manufacturer cost parity with
3
conventional spark ignition cars in 2035. No other ZEVs in other vehicle classes in MA3T reach cost
parity out to 2050. In fact, MA3T embeds default values that assume the manufacturer costs of ZEVs in
the other classes (i.e., car-SUVs, pickup trucks, truck-SUVs, and vans) are substantially greater than their
conventional vehicle (referring to ICEV) counterparts. However, in order to assess the extent of vehicle
manufacturer cost impacts on ZEV populations, the C1 simulations included aggressive adjustments to
MA3T inputs.
For these simulations, the vehicle manufacturer costs as assigned by MA3T were changed to achieve cost
parity at a faster rate than the model’s default values. The years of cost parity in the Low, Medium, and
High cases are 2040, 2035, and 2030. These adjustments reflect the literature findings that purchase
cost—of which battery cost is the most important determinant—is the largest barrier to ZEV adoption; at
the time of this report (2019), battery cost continues to decline at a fast rate (Beacon Economics 2018).
The values used are listed in Table A-5. These costs are a manufacturer’s capital costs, and do not include
maintenance costs or financial incentives such as rebates or tax credits.
It is important to acknowledge auto industry reports (for example, as of 2019, reports by Ford, General
Motors, and Volkswagen) announcing that automakers will release tens of ZEV models by 2025. The
auto industry reports suggest that cost parity will be reached sooner than may have previously been
expected, perhaps by mid-2020 or 2030 (Eisenstein 2019; Lambert 2019; Smith 2019; Hanley 2019).
4.3.2 Gasoline and diesel price assumptions (C2 and C3 simulations)
Data for weekly U.S. retail gasoline (all grades and formulations) and diesel (U.S. No. 2) prices from the
U.S. EIA (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/) were used to estimate rates of price increase for the
Low, Medium, and High case simulations. These data are shown in Figure A-1 and Figure A-2 in
38

Appendix A. From 2002 through 2018, theses prices increased by a small constant rate (on an annual
average, $0.07 for gasoline and $0.08 for diesel). The default gasoline and diesel fuel prices in MA3T
vary by region of the U.S. and year.
From 2019 to 2050, the forecasted prices for both gasoline and diesel increase on an annual basis by only
$0.02. To capture the historical rates of increase in gasoline and diesel prices (based on the U.S. EIA data)
in the C2 and C3 simulations, annual growth rates of $0.07 and $0.08 were applied for the Medium cases
of the gasoline and diesel price simulations, respectively. A rate of $0.05/year for both simulation sets
was used for the Low case, and a rate of $0.10/year for both simulation sets was used for the High case.
Although the historical prices reflect inflation, MA3T assumes that prices in all future years are
represented in 2018 dollars. The adjusted price inputs in were applied in MA3T for all regions. Increases
in fuel price can affect whether a consumer will choose to buy (either an ICEV or ATV) or not buy a
vehicle, as well as the mode of transportation a consumer chooses. MA3T includes a no-buy option that
can be influenced by high fuel prices.
4.4 MODEL RESULTS FOR ZEV POPULATIONS
The total ZEV populations estimated by the MA3T model for the year 2040, shown in Table 9,
demonstrate changes from the Base Case modeled ZEV population (25.5 million ZEVs) that are generally
consistent with the importance of ZEV adoption drivers and barriers identified in the literature review
conducted for Task 2 of this project. By default, MA3T assumes that there are no FCEVs on the market
throughout the 2005-2050 modeling period. To obtain FCEV sales and population estimates from MA3T,
numerous input parameters would be required and the model would need to be recalibrated. The 2019
AEO forecasts that FCEVs will account for less than half a percent of the total light-duty vehicle fleet in
2040, and it is highly uncertain what the FCEV technology and supporting infrastructure will be 20 or 30
years from now (2019).
Adjustments to ZEV costs—in terms of manufacturer cost (battery cost is not used separately from
manufacturer cost in the latest version of MA3T when this report was prepared [version V20190404]) and
gasoline price—in the cost parity simulations result in the largest ZEV populations (and therefore the
largest increases in ZEV population) across all scenarios. Diesel price has only a small impact on ZEV
adoption, possibly because of the higher cost of diesel vehicles and small number of diesel vehicle
options in MA3T.
Reflective of the importance of HOV lane access to ZEV adoption, the corresponding simulations result
in ZEV populations that represent increases in ZEV population relative to the Base Case that are among
the highest across simulations, after only consideration of (1) vehicle manufacturer costs and (2) gasoline
costs. The public charging power level simulations also produce some of the highest increases in ZEV
adoption across the simulations. Slow charging time was identified in the literature review as a key barrier
to ZEV adoption. The modeled increases in ZEV adoption for the public charging availability simulations
were less than for the charging power level simulations. Increases in ZEV adoption in the home charging
availability simulations was comparable to those for the public charging availability simulations, but the
change in ZEV adoption in home charging power levels was essentially zero. This could reflect the fact
that home charging usually occurs overnight with long charging time, so the power level is less important
than the power level of public charging stations. Interestingly, changes to workplace charging availability
and power level had little impact on ZEV adoption. This could imply that ZEV owners with access to
home and public charging have less need for charging at their workplaces.
39

Although ZEV purchase cost was identified as the greatest barrier to ZEV adoption in the literature
review, and financial incentives such as rebates effectively reduce the cost of ZEVs, changes to the
ARRA tax credit parameters and state rebate amounts had only a modest impact on the ZEV populations
estimated by MA3T. Increasing the number of OEMs producing eligible ZEVs had a slightly greater
impact than increasing the cap on the number of vehicles eligible for the ARRA credit. Surprisingly, in
test simulations for the ARRA cap and maximum subsidy in which the maximum subsidy was set to
$7,000, the increases in ZEV adoption were essentially the same when using the lower ($3,500)
maximum subsidy. Detailed results from those test simulations are not presented in this report.
Similarly, increasing state rebate amounts had essentially no impact on ZEV adoption. However,
increasing the duration of state rebates had impacts similar to increasing the ARRA cap. The increase in
ZEV adoption was substantial for the High case simulation in which the median state rebate with a 20-
year duration was applied to states that have no rebates as of 2019; this increase is comparable to the
increase in ZEV population in the High case simulation for public charging power level. One of the
MA3T model developers provided information that vehicle manufacturer cost, rebates, and tax credits are
valued differently in the model. It is possible that the model is underestimating the value of tax credits
and rebates.
40

Table 9. Model results of total ZEV population (millions of vehicles) in 2040 under all
scenarios, as estimated by MA3T.a
Simulation Scenario Description

Low Medium High
Set ID
B Base Case 25.5
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost 30.9 69.3 113.5
C2 Gasoline Prices 28.3 32.5 38.5
I2 Public Charging Power Level NAb 34.7 37.3
P5 Instant Rebate Amount and Duration

25.5 26.8 36.6
Applied to Other States
P6 HOV Lane Access Duration 26.3 28.0 31.6
I1 Public Charging Availability 25.5 27.7 30.0
P2 ARRA Number of OEM Producers 28.1 29.9 29.9
P4 Instant Rebate Duration 25.5 26.5 29.5
P1 ARRA Vehicle Cap and Maximum Subsidy 26.8 27.9 29.4
I3 Home Charging Availability NA 27.3 29.2
I5 Workplace Charging Availability NA 25.7 25.9
C3 Diesel Prices 25.6 25.8 25.9
P3 Instant Rebate Amount 25.5 25.5 25.5
I6 Workplace Charging Power Level NA 25.5 25.5
I4 Home Charging Power Level NA 25.5 25.5

a
Order of data is based on “High” simulation results.
b
NA indicates Not Applicable; no changes were made to default parameter values.
Table 10 summarizes the number of ZEVs relative to the total light-duty vehicle population estimated by
MA3T for each analysis scenario across the Low, Medium, and High cases for the year 2040. The
percentage of ZEVs in the Base Case scenario is 9%. Although the percentage of ZEVs does not increase
from the Base Case for several of the simulations, it does increase by 2% on average and by as much as
almost 30% across all simulations. The median increase in percentage of ZEVs across all scenario
41

simulations is 0.5%. For comparison, the market share of BEVs, FCEVs, and PHEVs in California in
2018 was 8%. The results in Table 4 indicate that—based on the MA3T simulations—by 2040, the
nationwide percentage of ZEVs could surpass the 2018 market share of ZEVs in California, where sales
of BEVs and FCEVs were a factor of ten greater than sales in the state with the next highest sales in 2018.
Table 10. Model results of total ZEV population in 2040 (as a percentage of the total light-
duty vehicle population) under all scenarios, as estimated by MA3T.a
Scenario ID Scenario Description Low Medium High
B Base Case 9%
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost 11% 24% 38%

C2 Gasoline Prices 10% 12% 15%
I2 Public Charging Power Level NAb 13% 13%
P5 Rebate Applied to Other States 9% 10% 13%
P6 HOV Lane Access Duration 10% 10% 11%
I1 Public Charging Availability 9% 10% 11%
P2 ARRA Number of OEM Producers 10% 11% 11%
P4 Instant Rebate Duration 10% 10% 11%
P1 ARRA Vehicle Cap and Maximum Subsidy 10% 10% 11%
I3 Home Charging Availability NA 10% 11%
C3 Diesel Prices 9% 9% 9%
I5 Workplace Charging Availability NA 9% 9%
P3 Instant Rebate Amount 9% 9% 9%
I6 Workplace Charging Power Level NA 9% 9%
I4 Home Charging Power Level NA 9% 9%
a
Order of data is based on “High” simulation results.
b
4.5 MODEL RESULTS FOR EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

The MOVES2014b model was used to calculate light-duty vehicle exhaust emissions for all analysis
scenarios. The population of the conventional vehicles modeled with MA3T was combined with the
emission factors modeled with MOVES2014b to calculate the exhaust emissions. While other emission
processes (e.g., start emissions, evaporative emissions, and refueling emissions) were not modeled, the
42

increased adoption of ZEVs would generally reduce emissions; an example of this would be a reduction
of evaporative HC from the light-duty fleet.
MOVES2014b provides emission factors in grams per vehicle mile traveled (VMT). Therefore, to
calculate emissions using MOVES emission factors, VMT information is required. However, MA3T
provides annual population and sales for light-duty vehicles; it does not provide estimates of VMT. The
VMT per vehicle estimates from MOVES2014b were used to calculate the total VMT for each vehicle
type from MA3T’s population estimate. This approach assumes that the VMT for each vehicle type would
not change because of the increase or decrease of electric vehicle population.
MOVES2014b was run in emission mode using the national default activity (i.e., age distribution, source
type population, and VMT) for the calendar year 2040. The activity output (i.e., population and VMT)
and the emission estimate (in grams) were used to back calculate the emission factors in g/mile. The
population and VMT estimates were also used to calculate VMT per vehicle. The pollutants included in
the analysis were criteria pollutants (nitrogen oxides [NOx], carbon monoxide [CO], particulate matter
[PM2.5 and PM10]), total gaseous hydrocarbons (HCs), MSATs (1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein,
benzene, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene [gaseous and particulate]), and GHGs (carbon dioxide
[CO2], methane [CH4], and nitrous oxide [N2O]). Since the emissions focus of this study was vehicle
exhaust, the modeling did not include emissions of PM from tire wear, brake wear, and re-entrained road
dust, which are independent of vehicle fuel type. The emission factors and VMT per vehicle estimates
were separated by model year to more accurately calculate the emissions.
MA3T estimated annual population and sales for light-duty vehicles, including cars, car sport utility
vehicles (CSUV), pickup trucks, truck sport utility vehicles (TSUV), and vans. These vehicles were
mapped to the MOVES vehicle types as shown in Table 11. Annual sales from each year were used as the
population from each model year. To calculate the emissions, the population was then multiplied by the
VMT per vehicle and the emission factor for the corresponding model year. The total emissions for the
calendar year 2040 was then calculated by summing up the emissions from different model years.
Table 11. Vehicle type mapping between MA3T and MOVES2014b.
MA3T Vehicle Class MOVES Vehicle Type MOVES Vehicle Type ID
Car Passenger cars 21
Car SUV (CSUV) Passenger cars 21
Pickup truck Light-duty truck 31
Truck SUV (TSUV) Light-duty truck 31
Van Light-duty truck 31
43

The emissions reductions for each simulation and pollutant modeled are summarized in Table 12 (also in
Figure A-3 through Figure A-5), Table 13 (also in Figure A-6 through Figure A-8), Table 14 (also in
Figure A-9 through Figure A-11), and Table 15 (also in Figure A-12 though Figure A-14). The
tables are separated by pollutant type (i.e., criteria pollutants and HCs, MSATs, and GHGs) and also
include the percentage change in emissions for each simulation and pollutant. GHG emissions reduction
results are presented in Table 15, which also includes the GHG equivalence in terms of the number of
passenger vehicles driven for one year, which was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator (available at https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-
gas-equivalencies-calculator). These emissions reductions are vehicle exhaust emissions only, and do not
account for “wheel-to-well” emissions over the life of vehicles.
The cost parity simulations for vehicle manufacturer cost result in reductions of (1) conventional vehicles
equivalent to as much as 11% of the on-road light-duty vehicle fleet in 2017, iv and (2) GHG emissions
equivalent to as much as 2% of total U.S. GHG emissions (CO2 equivalent) in 2017. v For the High and
Medium cases of the gasoline price simulations, the GHG emissions reductions are 1% relative to total
U.S. GHG emissions in 2017. The amount relative to total U.S. GHG emissions for all other simulations
is much less than 1%. The reductions in GHG emissions for each simulation are generally greater than
reductions in other pollutant emissions. The GHG equivalence values (equivalent to the number of
passenger vehicles driven in one year) are roughly one million vehicles per 1% decrease in CO2
equivalent GHG emissions. Emissions reductions for CO2 equivalent (CO2e) are not presented with the
GHG results because the differences between CO2e and CO2 emissions were 1% or less across all
simulations.
As would be expected, emissions reductions increase from the Low to Medium to High case simulations.
Across all simulations, the maximum emissions reductions, corresponding with the High case for each
simulation set, are generally 2% for all pollutants. This includes criteria pollutants, total HCs, and MSATs
(the maximum reductions are slightly higher for GHGs, up to 3%). The maximum reductions are
substantially greater than 2% in a few of the simulations as summarized in the lists below, which include
results and observations based on the literature review. The categories are defined by a range of
percentage reductions. The infrastructure simulations for charging availability and charging power are
shown together in a single category, even though one of the two (availability or power) fall into another
category (specifically, the less than 1% category).
Simulations with emissions reductions greater than 3%
• The greatest emissions reductions across all simulations are for the High cases of the vehicle
manufacturer cost (a 21% reduction) and gasoline price (14%) simulations. In the Medium cases
for those two simulation sets, the emissions reductions are 10% and 9%. The Low case of the
gasoline price simulation set produced a 4% reduction in emissions.
‒ Initial ZEV purchase cost, driven by battery cost, is the greatest barrier to ZEV adoption.
‒ One study found that gasoline price is one of the most significant factors affecting ZEV
adoption (Babaee et al., 2014).
‒ Another study found a correlation between BEV sales and gasoline prices (Transportation
Research Board and National Research Council, 2015).
44

• The High case simulation for rebates applied to other states (states that have not had rebates since
as early as 2011) produced a 9% reduction in emissions.
‒ Similar to the result for rebate amount simulations for states that already have rebates,
emissions were not reduced by implementing and increasing the amount of a rebate for other
states across the Low, Medium, and High cases.
‒ The increasing duration of a rebate with amount equal to the median amount across states
already having rebates drove the effect on the emissions reductions in this simulation set.
‒ As is the case for the state rebate duration simulations for states already having a rebate,
rebate durations may be more important because late majority and laggard consumers will
purchase ZEVs in the future.
‒ This simulation set had some of the most aggressive assumptions across simulations (it is
unlikely that all states will implement ZEV rebates), and thus resulted in some of the greatest
emissions reductions.
Simulations with emissions reductions between 2% and 3%
• An increase in the duration of HOV/HOT lane access results in emissions reductions up to 3%.
‒ In 2013, HOV lane access was the primary motivation for purchasing ZEVs in California
(United States Energy Information Administration, 2017); this has continued to be true
considering other more recent reports cited earlier in this report.
‒ The relatively small impact on emissions reductions in this simulation set is likely because
HOV/HOT lane access is not a primary driver for markets without large metropolitan areas.
• An increase in public charging power results in greater reduction of emissions (up to 2%) than
public charging availability (up to 1%).
‒ Slow charging time is a barrier to ZEV adoption.
‒ Public charging availability is not a significant concern for drivers with access to home
charging.
• The ARRA simulation sets (the vehicle cap and maximum subsidy set and the number of OEM
producers set) result in about the same reduction in emissions (up to 2%).
‒ It is possible that the low emissions reductions related to ARRA factors is a result of a lack of
consumer and auto dealer awareness.
‒ Several studies discuss the need for increasing consumer and auto dealer knowledge of ZEVs
and available incentives.
• An increase in home charging availability results in greater reduction of emissions (up to 2%)
than home charging power (0%).
‒ Most ZEV drivers do more than 80% of their vehicle charging at home and overnight (U.S.
DOE 2019d and 2019e).
‒ Home charging power is less of a concern than availability, because long charging time can
be used overnight.
45

• Emissions reductions for the state rebate amount simulation set are 0%, but up to 2% for the
rebate duration set.
‒ MA3T values rebates, tax credits, and vehicle manufacturer cost differently; although rebates
and tax credits effectively reduce the purchase cost of ZEVs, MA3T did not produce
substantial changes in estimated ZEV populations when rebate amounts were increased.
‒ Although recent efforts—particularly in California—are better incentivizing ZEVs for low- to
mid-income drivers, ZEVs have generally been purchased by higher income drivers; higher
income drivers may be less affected by rebate amounts.
‒ Rebate durations may be more important because late majority and laggard consumers will
purchase ZEVs in the future.
• The emissions reductions for the High case of the diesel price simulation set is 2%, while the
Medium and Low cases produced emissions reductions less than 2%. The majority of
conventional vehicle types in MA3T have spark ignition technology.
Simulations with emissions reductions of less than 2%
• An increase in work charging availability results in greater reduction of emissions (up to 1%)
than work charging power (0%).
‒ Workplace charging was not identified as a driver or barrier in the Task 2 literature review.
‒ One assumption is that drivers with access to home charging will not depend on workplace
charging for their daily commuting.
It is important to consider that the modeled reductions in GHG emissions, presented in Table 15 and in
Figure A-12 through Figure A-14, do not account for expected increases in GHG emissions as a result
of the phenomenon termed “leakage.” This is related to the way in which vehicle manufacturers meet the
CAFE standards. Not all vehicles produced by a manufacturer are required to meet the standard; rather,
the overall standard applies as an average of the fuel economies across the mix of vehicles produced by a
manufacturer. Therefore, as more ZEVs are produced, less fuel-efficient vehicles can also be produced,
and the manufacturer can still meet the overall fuel economy standard.
Jenn et al. (2016) calculated increases in CO2 emissions and gasoline consumption each time an
alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) is sold, assuming (1) no policy changes between 2016 and 2025, (2) no
effect of AFV sales on a manufacturer’s total vehicle sales, and (3) that a manufacturer complies with
future GHG emissions regulations. Using projections of vehicle sales from 2012-2015 AEO reports, they
estimated a net increase of 30 to 70 million metric tons of CO2 over the lifetimes of vehicles sold from
2012 to 2025 as a result of the CAFE standards and regulation of vehicle fleet average GHG emissions.
However, the advancement of ZEV technology and growth in ZEV sales between 2016 and 2018 could
indicate a changing future vehicle fleet mix. The rapid growth in sales could also have an influence on
how future standards are set and lead to stricter standards, as suggested in a report from the Congressional
Budget Office (2012), resulting in a greater overall fuel efficiency of the future vehicle fleet.
Furthermore, well-to-wheel emissions associated with the sources of electricity used to charge ZEVs are
not modeled by MA3T, and modeling those was outside the scope of this study. However, information is
available that can provide insight on how different electricity sources could contribute to ZEV emissions.
46

The DOE Alternative Fuels Data Center provides summaries of state-level electricity sources and annual
emissions per vehicle for EVs, PHEVs, HEVs, and gas-powered vehicles (see
https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html). Figure 5 shows these data for two states with
different profiles of electricity sources and emissions associated with ZEVs. Washington state, where
hydroelectric sources provide a majority of the power, has relatively low ZEV emissions derived from the
electricity source; on the other hand, coal provides a large fraction of electricity in Colorado, where ZEVs
have relatively large emissions associated with electricity sources. Further analysis of this type of data
would provide a more complete picture of well-to-wheel mobile source emissions impacts due to the
adoption of ZEVs.
Figure 5. State average electricity sources and annual emissions per EVs and PHEVs for
Washington state and Colorado.
Image source: U.S. DOE (https://afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.html)
47

Table 12. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of criteria pollutants and total hydrocarbons
(HCs) for calendar year 2040.
Simulation Simulation Description NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Total HCs Averagea

Set ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost (High) 21,233 411,466 1,236 1,095 15,739
(16) (16) (16) (16) (15) (16)
C2 Gasoline Prices (High) 15,225 304,390 848 751 12,160
(11) (12) (11) (11) (12) (11)
P5 Other States Rebates (High) 11,326 220,487 648 573 8,540
(8) (9) (9) (9) (8) (9)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Medium) 9,200 182,173 517 458 7,280
(7) (7) (7) (7) (7) (7)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost (Medium) 8,409 161,684 513 454 6,491
(6) (6) (7) (7) (6) (7)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Low) 4,182 82,099 238 211 3,289
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
P6 HOV Access Duration (High) 4,131 79,696 235 208 3,163
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I2 Public Charging Power (High) 3,110 60,322 180 159 2,337
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P1 ARRA Max # Vehicles and Subsidy 2,993 58,850 172 153 2,258
(High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
48


Set ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
P2 ARRA Number of OEM Producers 2,835 54,380 165 146 2,177
(High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
(Medium) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P4 State Rebate Duration (High) 2,844 55,265 161 143 2,144
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
I2 Public Charging Power (Medium) 2,641 51,291 153 136 1,988
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
I3 Home Charging Availability (High) 2,573 49,679 152 135 1,982
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P1 ARRA Max # Vehicles and Subsidy 2,017 39,792 118 104 1,523
(Medium) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P6 HOV Access Duration (Medium) 1,836 35,048 105 93 1,423
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I1 Public Charging Availability (High) 1,820 35,458 106 94 1,376
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (High) 1,709 29,515 114 101 1,049
(1) (1) (2) (2) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Medium) 1,485 25,676 100 88 910
49


Set ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I1 Public Charging Availability (Medium) 1,368 26,660 80 71 1,037
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P1 ARRA Max # Vehicles and Subsidy 1,261 25,007 75 66 950
(Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I3 Home Charging Availability (Medium) 1,265 24,420 75 66 974
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P5 Other States Rebates (Medium) 1,171 22,663 67 60 902
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I5 Work Charging Availability (High) 1,137 21,987 67 59 870
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost (Low) 904 16,349 56 50 711
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Medium) 722 13,910 41 37 557
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P6 HOV Access Duration (Low) 674 12,636 36 32 532
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Low) 586 10,102 40 35 359
(0) (0) (1) (1) (0) (0)
50


Set ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
I5 Work Charging Availability (Medium) 567 10,962 34 30 434
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P5 Other States Rebates (Low) 64 1,145 3 3 53
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Low) 55 984 3 2 46
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (High) 34 626 2 2 28
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Medium) 15 281 1 1 13
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging Availability (Low) 8 157 1 0 6
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Low) 6 106 0 0 5
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power (High) 0 7 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power (Medium) 0 7 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging Power (High) 0 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
51


Set ID (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
I4 Home Charging Power (Medium) 0 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging Power (Low) NAb NA NA NA NA NA
I3 Home Charging Availability (Low) NA NA NA NA NA NA
I4 Home Charging Power (Low) NA NA NA NA NA NA
I5 Work Charging Availability (Low) NA NA NA NA NA NA

a
Order of data is based on average percentage reduction in emissions across pollutants.
b
52

Table 13. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of four MSATs for calendar year 2040.a
Simulation Set Simulation Description 1,3-Butadiene Acetaldehyde Acrolein Benzene Average

ID
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost 103 351 20 585
(High) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15)
C2 Gasoline Prices (High) 82 273 16 464
(12) (11) (11) (11) (11)
P5 Other States Rebates (High) 56 190 11 329
(8) (8) (8) (8) (8)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Medium) 49 158 9 276
(7) (7) (7) (7) (7)
(Medium) (6) (6) (6) (6) (6)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Low) 22 72 4 48
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
P6 HOV Access Duration (High) 21 71 4 122
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I2 Public Charging Power (High) 15 52 3 88
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P1 ARRA Max # Vehicles and 15 50 3 87
Subsidy (High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P2 ARRA Number of OEM 14 49 3 84
Producers (High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
53


ID
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
Producers (Medium) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P4 State Rebate Duration (High) 14 48 3 82
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
I2 Public Charging Power 13 44 3 75
(Medium) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
I3 Home Charging Availability 13 44 3 73
(High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Subsidy (Medium) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
P6 HOV Access Duration 9 32 2 55
(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I1 Public Charging Availability 9 31 2 51
(High) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Producers (Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (High) 6 27 1 38
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
54


ID
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Subsidy (Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Medium) 5 23 1 33
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P5 Other States Rebates (Medium) 6 20 1 35
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I5 Work Charging Availability 6 19 1 32
(High) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Medium) 4 12 1 22
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P6 HOV Access Duration (Low) 4 12 1 21
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Low) 2 9 1 13
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P5 Other States Rebates (Low) 0 1 0 2
55


ID
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Low) 0 1 0 2
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (High) 0 1 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Medium) 0 0 0 1
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
(Low) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Low) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging Power (High) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging Power 0 0 0 0
(Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power (High) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power 0 0 0 0
(Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging Power (Low) NAb NA NA NA NA
56


ID
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
I3 Home Charging Availability NA NA NA NA NA
(Low)
I4 Home Charging Power (Low) NA NA NA NA NA
I5 Work Charging Availability NA NA NA NA NA

(Low)
I6 Work Charging Power (Low) NA NA NA NA NA

a
b
57

Table 14. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions (in tons) of remaining MSATs for calendar year 2040.a
Simulation Set Simulation Description Ethylbenzene Formaldehyde Naphthalene Naphthalene Average

ID gas particle
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost (High) 226 206 34 0
(15) (15) (15) (16) (15)
C2 Gasoline Prices (High) 179 147 26 0
(12) (11) (11) (11) (11)
P5 Other States Rebates (High) 127 110 19 0
(8) (8) (8) (9) (8)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Medium) 107 89 16 0
(7) (7) (7) (7) (7)
(Medium) (6) (6) (6) (7) (6)
C2 Gasoline Prices (Low) 48 41 7 0
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
P6 HOV Access Duration (High) 47 40 7 0
(3) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I2 Public Charging Power (High) 34 30 5 0
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Subsidy (High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Producers (High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
58


ID gas particle
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
Producers (Medium) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P4 State Rebate Duration (High) 32 28 5 0
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
I2 Public Charging Power (Medium) 29 26 4 0
(2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
(High) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2)
Subsidy (Medium) (1) (2) (2) (2) (2)
P6 HOV Access Duration (Medium) 21 18 3 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(High) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Producers (Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (High) 15 17 2 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Medium) 13 15 2 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
59


ID gas particle
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
Subsidy (Low) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P5 Other States Rebates (Medium) 14 11 2 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(High) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
C1 Vehicle Manufacturer Cost (Low) 10 9 2 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Medium) 8 7 1 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P6 HOV Access Duration (Low) 8 7 1 0
(1) (1) (1) (1) (1)
(Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices (Low) 5 6 1 0
(0) (0) (0) (1) (0)
60


ID gas particle
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
P5 Other States Rebates (Low) 1 1 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P4 State Rebate Duration (Low) 1 1 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (High) 1 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Medium) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
(Low) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P3 State Rebate Amount (Low) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging Power (High) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging Power (Medium) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power (High) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging Power (Medium) 0 0 0 0
(0) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging Power (Low) NAb NA NA NA NA
61


ID gas particle
(%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
I3 Home Charging Availability NA NA NA NA NA
(Low)
I4 Home Charging Power (Low) NA NA NA NA NA
I5 Work Charging Availability (Low) NA NA NA NA NA
I6 Work Charging Power (Low) NA NA NA NA NA

a
b
62

Table 15. Reduction in modeled light-duty passenger vehicle emissions of GHGs (million
metric tons CO2; metric tons CH4 and N2O) for calendar year 2040.a
Simulation Simulation CO2 CH4 N2O Average Equivalent

Set ID Description Passenger
(%) (%) (%) (%)
Vehicles’ Annual
GHG Emissions
(# vehicles)b
C1 Vehicle 99 1,581 2,291 21,255,112
Manufacturer Cost (23) (21) (20) (21)
(High)
C2 Gasoline Prices 64 1,018 1,551 13,779,446

(High) (15) (14) (14) (14)
C1 Vehicle 49 784 1,081 10,431,866
(Medium)
C2 Gasoline Prices 40 638 955 8,578,846

(Medium) (9) (9) (8) (9)
P5 Other States 39 610 995 8,335,632
Rebates (High) (9) (8) (9) (9)
C2 Gasoline Prices 19 305 449 4,081,797
(Low) (4) (4) (4) (4)
P6 HOV Access 14 222 358 2,943,064
Duration (High) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I3 Home Charging 14 218 306 2,897,350
Availability (High) (3) (3) (3) (3)
I2 Public Charging 13 210 314 2,822,314
Power (High) (3) (3) (3) (3)
Power (Medium) (3) (3) (2) (3)
P1 ARRA Max # 11 171 278 2,357,565
Vehicles and (3) (2) (3) (2)
Subsidy (High)
P4 State Rebate 10 160 255 2,173,409

Duration (High) (2) (2) (2) (2)
63


(%) (%) (%) (%)
Vehicles’ Annual
GHG Emissions
(# vehicles)b
P2 ARRA Number of 9 146 237 1,902,441
OEM Producers (2) (2) (2) (2)
(High)
P2 ARRA Number of 9 146 237 1,902,441

(Medium)

P1 ARRA Max # 8 116 190 1,601,618
Vehicles and (2) (2) (2) (2)
Subsidy (Medium)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices 7 114 167 1,468,296

(High) (2) (2) (1) (2)
I3 Home Charging 7 107 150 1,424,457
Availability (2) (1) (1) (1)
(Medium)

(Medium)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices 6 101 147 1,304,147

(Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P6 HOV Access 6 96 151 1,219,680
Duration (Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I5 Work Charging 6 95 133 1,260,626
C1 Vehicle 6 97 126 1,261,335
(Low)
64


(%) (%) (%) (%)
Vehicles’ Annual
GHG Emissions
(# vehicles)b
P2 ARRA Number of 5 90 143 1,156,679
(Low)
P1 ARRA Max # 5 73 120 1,011,936

Vehicles and (1) (1) (1) (1)
Subsidy (Low)
P5 Other States 4 64 102 836,727

Rebates (Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1)
I5 Work Charging 3 47 67 629,334
(Medium)
C3 Diesel Fuel Prices 3 43 61 549,532

(Low) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P4 State Rebate 2 39 62 506,842
Duration (Medium) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P6 HOV Access 2 35 53 427,714
Duration (Low) (1) (1) (1) (1)
P5 Other States 0 3 4 34,192
Rebates (Low) (0) (0) (0) (0)
P4 State Rebate 0 3 4 28,752
Duration (Low) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Amount (High) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging 0 1 1 9,003
Availability (Low) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Amount (Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0)
Amount (Low) (0) (0) (0) (0)
65


(%) (%) (%) (%)
Vehicles’ Annual
GHG Emissions
(# vehicles)b
I6 Work Charging 0 0 0 325
Power (High) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I6 Work Charging 0 0 0 325
Power (Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging 0 0 0 0
Power (High) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I4 Home Charging 0 0 0 0
Power (Medium) (0) (0) (0) (0)
I1 Public Charging NAc NA NA NA NA
Power (Low)
I3 Home Charging NA NA NA NA NA
Availability (Low)
I4 Home Charging NA NA NA NA NA
Power (Low)
I5 Work Charging NA NA NA NA NA
Availability (Low)
I6 Work Charging NA NA NA NA NA
Power (Low)
a
b
Total GHG emissions are equivalent to the amount from the listed number of passenger vehicles driven
for one year (https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator).
c
4.6 SUMMARY OF MODELING RESULTS, MAJOR LIMITATIONS, AND

IMPLICATIONS
A total of 49 simulations were performed; one simulation for the Base Case scenario 1, and three
sensitivity simulations for scenarios 2 through 4. Nationwide ZEV populations used in the MOVES2014b
modeling were estimated by the MA3T model V20190404. The relative increases in ZEV populations
modeled by MA3T for calendar year 2040 are generally consistent with findings in the literature review.
The literature shows that purchase cost is the greatest barrier to ZEV adoption, and the single most
66

important determinant of purchase cost is battery cost; MA3T modeled consumer preference consistently
with these findings.
The largest ZEV population increases modeled with MA3T (and corresponding reductions in emissions)
are for the cost parity scenarios in which (1) ZEV manufacturer costs reach parity with conventional
vehicles in 2030, 2035, and 2040; and (2) gasoline prices increase at accelerated rates between 2019 and
2040. However, while estimated emissions decreased with increased ZEV population compared to the
Base Case, the level of decrease was not as great as the change in total ZEV population. For example, a
large decrease in the vehicle manufacturer cost of ZEVs (the High case) caused the modeled population of
ZEVs to increase from 9% in the Base Case to 38% of the total light-duty vehicle population in 2040.
This change in the overall light-duty vehicle fleet composition resulted in a 23% reduction in modeled
CO2 emissions. That change in emissions is roughly equal to the increase in the share of ZEVs in the
modeled vehicle fleet (29%). The difference between the two changes could be attributed to fleet turnover
effects, such as consumers choosing not to buy a new car and keeping an older higher-emitting car.
Although financial incentives like tax credits and rebates contribute to the reduction of overall ZEV cost,
the MA3T model generally estimated moderate increases in the ZEV population as a result of changes to
those inputs. The corresponding MOVES-estimated emissions reductions for the incentives/policy
scenarios were also moderate. The models showed larger increases in ZEV population and reductions in
emissions for the scenarios in which rebates with long duration were applied to states without rebates as
of 2019. Findings in the literature review suggest that consumer education plays an important role in
making rebates and tax credits effective. It is possible that, the longer a credit or rebate applies, the
greater its effectiveness will be, as consumers have a longer period to learn about rebate and tax credit
programs and consider how those will affect their net cost for ZEV vehicle ownership relative to a
conventional vehicle.
The literature review also showed that HOV lane access has a strong influence on ZEV adoption. The
findings in this analysis suggest that, for longer periods of HOV lane access, there may be a moderate
increase in ZEV adoption and corresponding reduction in emissions. Driving range and related
infrastructure were identified as key factors of ZEV adoption in the literature review. Findings from the
infrastructure scenarios confirmed these factors, with moderate modeled increases in ZEV populations
and reductions in emissions.
The relative magnitude and direction of modeled changes in ZEV populations and light-duty vehicle
exhaust emissions presented in this report can provide insight into the factors that affect ZEV adoption.
The qualitative impacts on emissions across all simulation sets are presented in Table 16. However, the
results for ZEV population growth and emissions reduction should be interpreted with caution. There is
substantial uncertainty surrounding the modeled outcomes presented here. The main objective of this
work was not so much to forecast a precise expected future fraction of the vehicle fleet that will become
ZEVs, as to enable readers to understand what key factors influence the degree to which ZEVs will
penetrate the vehicle fleet.
Although MA3T is a highly detailed consumer choice model, it does have limitations. As described in Lin
and Greene 2009, which first introduced the model formulation, MA3T uses some data that may not yet
exist, and represents consumer behavior that may not be fully understood. Plausible assumptions are made
for data that are lacking or uncertain. Also, some attributes that vary by market segment and over time are
not represented as such.
67

Another example limitation is the estimation of the distribution of daily vehicle use for which longitudinal
travel data are not available. The current version of MA3T (V20190404) also assumes that no FCEVs are
on the market within its modeling period (2005-2050). However, FCEVs are forecast to make up only 2%
of the ATV market and less than half a percent of the total light-duty market in 2040 (U.S. EIA 2019a).
The model developers have updated the model over time and acknowledge the need for further research
and data to continue model updates.
Finally, these are vehicle exhaust emissions only, and do not include wheel-to-well emissions associated
with the source of power used to charge the vehicle. This should be considered when assessing the
modeled emission reductions in this study.
Table 16. Qualitative impacts of modeled cost parity, policy, and infrastructure changes in
the scenario simulations.
Qualitative
Scenario Description Emissions Impact
Vehicle Manufacturer Cost Parity (Cost Parity) High
Gasoline Price Increase (Cost Parity) High
Instant Rebate with Long Duration Applied to Other States (Policy) High
HOV Lane Access with Long Duration (Policy) Moderate
Home Charging Availability Increase (Infrastructure) Moderate
Public Charging Power Level Increase (Infrastructure) Moderate
ARRA Vehicle Cap Increase and Maximum Subsidy Adjustment (Policy) Moderate
State Rebate Duration Increase (Policy) Moderate
ARRA Number of OEM Producers Increase (Policy) Moderate
Public Charging Availability Increase (Infrastructure) Low
Diesel Price Increase (Cost Parity) Low
Workplace Charging Availability Increase (Infrastructure) Low
Instant Rebate Amount Increase (Policy) Negligible
Home Charging Power Level Increase (Infrastructure) Negligible
Workplace Charging Power Level Increase (Infrastructure) Negligible
68

Combinations of parameter adjustments in MA3T that lead to increased ZEV adoption could lead to
greater ZEV adoption outcomes than could be achieved by adjusting a single parameter, depending on the
magnitude of increased ZEV adoption from the individual parameters. The results of combined factors are
not necessarily additive, since MA3T includes important feedback mechanisms that result in a synergistic
effect on ZEV adoption. Modeling combined scenarios was beyond the scope of this study but should be
considered for future research.
The sensitivity testing completed here identified the relative importance of the various factors represented
in the modeling scenarios. The findings suggest that, to support efforts to promote adoption of ZEVs,
state DOTs and MPOs should consider the following (listed in order of importance):
• Cost Parity simulations, specifically the gasoline price and the High and Medium cases of the
vehicle manufacturer cost simulations, resulted in the greatest reductions of light-duty vehicle
emissions.
• Long-duration rebates in states that do not have a rebate (as of 2019) resulted in the next highest
reductions of light-duty vehicle emissions.
• The greatest change in HOV lane access (i.e., extended access to HOV lanes from 2014‒2030)
had the next highest emissions reductions.
In order to act on these findings, in some instances DOTs and MPOs may act independently. Expanding
infrastructure necessary for ZEVs is one such example; for example, as of 2019, the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was in the process of building electric vehicle charging
infrastructure (California Department of Transportation, 2019). DOTs and MPOs may also consider
expanding consumer and dealer education programs to increase awareness of rebates and incentives,
which was found to be an important driver of ZEV adoption in the literature review although unquantified
through MA3T. In fact, some state DOTs are integrating consumer education into their plans, including
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which highlights opportunities to promote
public awareness and education about electric vehicles in their recent draft Zero-Emission Vehicle Plan
(North Carolina Department of Transportation, 2019). Establishing a policy of allowing ZEVs free or
discounted access to HOV lanes is another mechanism for encouraging customers to consider purchasing
ZEVs, particularly when that policy offers ZEVs free or discounted HOV access for a long period of time.
However, for many of these findings, DOTs and MPOs may need to work collaboratively with other
agencies and organizations (e.g., state policymakers, state environmental protection agencies, and state
resource agencies). For example, DOTs, through coordinated work with sister agencies such as state
departments of motor vehicles, may work to effectively increase the cost of purchasing an ICEV relative
to a ZEV by increasing registration fees on vehicles with higher tailpipe emissions. To promote cost
parity between ZEVs and their ICEV counterparts, planning agencies and their partners could also
implement incentives and rebates that effectively lower both production costs for manufacturers and
purchase costs for consumers. Findings in this research also show that increasing the price of fuel for
ICEVs also makes ZEVs more attractive to consumers; therefore, increasing the gas tax may be one
approach to encouraging ZEV adoption. By jointly setting emission and air quality goals with other state
and local agencies, DOTs and MPOs may put to use a wide range of tools to effect a meaningful
reduction in harmful emissions.
69

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTED RESEARCH

The research presented in this report includes
1. Findings from a literature review on factors affecting adoption of ZEVs
2. Analysis scenarios that represent a broad range of potential future ZEV fleet changes given
different future policy, technology, and infrastructure assumptions
3. Details about the assumptions made for MA3T model input parameters used in each analysis
scenario
4. A summary of ZEV populations estimated by MA3T in simulations for each scenario, and
5. A summary of reductions in emissions estimated by MOVES2014b, corresponding to the ZEV
population outputs from MA3T.
Key factors affecting the adoption of ZEVs were identified in the literature review. Examples of these
factors include vehicle purchase cost, availability of charging infrastructure, access to HOV lanes, and
consumer awareness of ZEV technology and ZEV rebates or tax credits. The findings from the literature
review were used to develop the set of scenarios of electric vehicle adoption rates (in 2040) that were
modeled with MA3T and subsequently analyzed for corresponding emission reductions. The MA3T model
was found to be adequate for modeling ZEV adoption because of its robustness in representing consumer
behavior, its inclusion of many of the key factors affecting ZEV adoption, and its performance when
comparing to other sets of ZEV adoption data. However, some of the model results were unexpected (e.g.,
increasing rebate amounts and home charging availability had little effect on ZEV adoption). Research
into the assumptions used in MA3T for how consumers value incentives and other factors might explain
some of the unexpected results. Because the emission reduction results presented in this report rely on
outputs from the MA3T model, recommendations for further research focus on the model.
The largest reductions in emissions modeled for the year 2040 were for the cost parity scenarios, in which
(1) ZEV manufacturer costs reach parity with conventional vehicles as early as 2030, and (2) gasoline
prices increase at accelerated rates between 2019 and 2050. Those reductions ranged from about 4-23%
across the modeled pollutants (i.e., criteria pollutants, HCs, MSATs, and GHGs). Application of rebates
to states that did not have rebates as of 2019 resulted in emissions reductions around 9%. Extending the
duration of HOV lane access produced emissions reductions of about 3%. In general, the maximum
modeled emissions reductions in 2040 achieved across the infrastructure and most Incentive/Policy
scenarios were approximately 2-3% compared to the Base Case. These results can be used by state DOTs
and MPOs to understand what types of policies and programs can benefit ZEV adoption and reduce light-
duty vehicle exhaust emissions, and the magnitude of emission reductions that might be achieved.
Ultimately, increasing ZEV adoption and associated reductions in emissions could lead to improvements
in air quality.
Recommendations for further research are summarized below:
• The need for consumer and auto dealer education on purchasing ZEVs was identified in the
literature review. Research into the influence of education programs would provide insight into
programs and actions that fall well within many transportation agencies’ area of influence.
70

• Research into the long-term influence of range anxiety, price factors, home charge availability,
and other factors will also provide insight into how consumers might respond to various policies
and programs.
• As ZEVs become a larger portion of the light-duty vehicle fleet, there is potential for new policies
that could offset positive incentives. Policies such as state-level increases in ZEV registration fees
as a result of losses in gas taxes could be considered in future developments of the MA3T model.
• Because ZEV battery costs continue to decline at a rapid rate, research into ZEV manufacturer
cost assumptions in MA3T are warranted. Modeling results in this study showed that cost parity
of ZEVs with ICEVs had some of the largest impacts on ZEV adoption and emission reductions.
The default vehicle manufacturer costs in MA3T show that manufacturer cost for ZEVs and their
conventional vehicle counterparts differ more for larger vehicle classes (e.g., SUVs). Research
into manufacturer cost differences by ZEV size classes could improve the assumptions in MA3T
as more large-class ZEVs come into the market. Other BEV technologies, such as a 150-mile
range BEV, could also be considered for inclusion in the model.
• In general, further work is needed to improve understanding of what affects consumer behavior
and adoption rates for new vehicle technology. One of the MA3T model developers indicated that
future updates to the model will consider the influence of the “normalizing” of new electric
vehicle technology. The modelers intend to investigate how consumer behavior might change
once electric vehicles represent a larger portion of the market (e.g., 40% or more), representing an
“inflection point” in adoption of ZEVs, and integrate that consumer behavior into the MA3T
model.
• More research is also needed to better understand producer behavior and production rates for new
vehicle technology. If CAFE standards are not increased apace with increases in ZEV market
share, vehicle manufacturers may choose to meet the average fuel economy requirement through
a mix of ZEVs and increasingly less efficient ICEVs. This phenomenon, known as “leakage,”
could negate the reduction in emissions associated with ZEVs, especially for CO2 emissions.
• A complete analysis of well-to-wheel emissions associated with ZEVs in particular and ATVs in
general would provide a more complete picture of expected emission reductions. It would also
support transportation agency partners in understanding the relative importance of different
actions to reduce emissions from the transportation sector.
• MA3T considers only the U.S. household users of light-duty vehicles as the consumer market.
However, as of 2017, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles contributed approximately 23 percent of
all GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2019). More research is needed into factors that reduce emissions associated with
freight. This includes policies targeting glider trucks (i.e., trucks with new bodies and old engines
that can emit up to 40 times more emissions than new diesel engines), “electric roads” that
provide electric power to vehicles via overhead catenary cables or conductor rails, truck stop
electrification (i.e., providing heating/cooling and other services at truck stops without the need
for trucks to idle), and factors responsible for growth and sales of newer battery and FCEV
technology for freight.
71

• The MA3T model is calibrated to the AEO forecast. Other forecasts, such as the Navigant
Consulting forecast or the Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecast, project substantially greater
ATV adoption. This is an area for further investigation, as calibrating the model to other forecasts
would provide alternate outcomes.
• By default, MA3T V20190404 assumes that there are no FCEVs on the market, even by the end
of the modeling time period (2050). Future calibration of the MA3T model would benefit from
including data for FCEVs. Although the 2019 AEO forecasts that FCEVs will account for less
than half a percent of the total light-duty vehicle fleet in 2040, it is highly uncertain what the
FCEV technology and supporting infrastructure will be 20 or 30 years from now (2019).
• The MA3T model uses nominal 2018 dollars for all costs, prices, and tax credit and rebate
amounts. This could affect model outcomes. For example, ARRA tax credits could be issued
beyond 2018 if a vehicle manufacturer has not yet reached the maximum number of subsidized
vehicles after 2018. Adjustment of dollar amounts to account for inflation could be added to the
model formulation in a future version.
• Finally, the total emissions associated with electric vehicles are already strongly associated with
the electricity source used for charging; for example, a BEV charged exclusively on electricity
sourced from a coal-fired power plant would have equivalent wheel-to-well emissions of a 29-
mpg car, while cleaner electricity sources would result in far greater equivalent emissions (Nealer
et al., 2015). As electric vehicles become increasingly commonplace, the change in emissions
associated with electric vehicles will increasingly be driven at the grid level. These impacts will
likely overlap other developments in the transportation industry (e.g., the spread of autonomous
vehicles), in utilities (e.g., distributed generation and storage, structural shifts in traditional IOUs
as overall electricity consumption declines), and even in the supply chain of electric vehicle
manufacturing (i.e., “cradle to grave” emissions generated from the sourcing of raw materials to
the disposal of obsolete vehicles). Integrating these tailpipe emission models with scenarios that
focus on those transportation network and grid level impacts would provide a more complete
picture of future emissions.
72

REFERENCES
Al-Alawi, B.M., and T.H. Bradley. 2013. “Review of Hybrid, Plug-In Hybrid, And Electric Vehicle
Market Modeling Studies.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 21, May 2013,
Pages 190-203. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403211300004X (As of March 29, 2019).
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. 2019. Advanced Technology Vehicle Sales Dashboard. Available
at: https://autoalliance.org/energy-environment/advanced-technology-vehicle-sales-dashboard/
(As of September 9, 2019).
Automotive News (2017) Electric vehicles and the future of fixed ops.
https://www.autonews.com/article/20171218/RETAIL05/171219906/electric-vehicles-and-the-
future-of-fixed-ops. (As of September 9, 2019).
Babaee, S., A.S. Nagpure, J.F. DeCarolis. 2014. “How Much Do Electric Vehicles Matter to Future U.S.
Emissions?” Environmental Science Technology, 2014, 48 (3), pp 1382–1390. Available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ipdf/10.1021/es4045677 (As of March 29, 2019).
Beacon Economics. 2018. The Road Ahead for Zero-Emission Vehicles in California. Available at:
https://www.next10.org/sites/default/files/ca-zev-brief.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2018. Electric Vehicle Outlook 2018. Available at:
https://about.bnef.com/electric-vehicle-outlook/ (As of March 29, 2019).
British Petroleum. 2018. BP Energy Outlook 2018 edition. Available at:
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-
economics/energy-outlook/bp-energy-outlook-2018.pdf (As of September 27, 2019).
California Department of Motor Vehicles. 2019. Clean Air Vehicle Decals - High Occupancy Vehicle
Lane Usage. Available at:
https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/?1dmy&urile=wcm:path:/dmv_content_en/dmv/vr/decal.
(As of September 10, 2019).
California Department of Transportation. 2019. Sustainability: Zero Emission Vehicles. Available at
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/sustainability (As of November 20, 2019).
California Energy Commission. 2017. Transportation Energy Demand Forecast 2018 – 2030. State of
California. Available at: https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=221893 (As of March
29, 2019).
California Public Utilities Commission. 2018. Zero Emission Vehicles – Fact Sheet. State of California.
Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/
zev_regulation_factsheet_082418.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Coffman, M., P. Bernstein, and S. Wee. 2016. “Electric vehicles revisited: a review of factors that affect
adoption.” Transport Reviews. Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 79-93. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1217282. (As of September 25, 2019).
Congressional Budget Office. 2012. Effects of Federal Tax Credits for the Purchase of Electric Vehicles.
Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/09-20-12-
electricvehicles0.pdf (As of October 1, 2019).
73

Congressional Research Service. 2019. The plug-in electric vehicle tax credit. Available at:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/IF11017.pdf (As of September 10, 2019).
Consumer Reports. 2019. Tesla Model 3 Loses CR Recommendation Over Reliability Issues.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/tesla-model-3-loses-cr-
recommendation-over-reliability-issues/ (As of September 9, 2019).
Consumers Union and Union of Concerned Scientists. 2016. Electric Vehicle Survey Methodology and
Assumptions: Driving Habits, Vehicle Needs, and Attitude towards Electric Vehicles in the
Northeast and California. Consumers Union/Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at:
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/05/Electric-Vehicle-Survey-
Methodology.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Eisenstein, P.A. 2019. “EVs will reach cost parity with gas cars ‘sooner than people think,’ says GM’s
Reuss.” The Detroit Bureau, June 7. Available at https://www.thedetroitbureau.com/2019/06/evs-
will-reach-cost-parity-with-gas-cars-sooner-than-people-think-says-gms-reuss (As of November
20, 2019).
Digital Trends. 2018. It’s not easy being green: California strips HOV rights from clean-air cars.
Available at: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/california-drivers-lose-clean-air-decals/ (As of
September 10, 2019).
Electrify America. 2017. Supplement to the California ZEV Investment Plan Cycle 1. Volkswagen Group
of America. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msprog/vw_info/vsi/vw-
zevinvest/documents/california_zev_investment_plan_supplement_062917.pdf (As of November
21, 2019).
Electrify America. 2018. California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2. Volkswagen Group of America.
Available at: https://www.electrifyamerica.com/sites/default/files/inline-
files/Cycle%202%20California%20ZEV%20Investment%20Plan.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Electrify America. 2019. National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2. Volkswagen Group of America.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/cycle2-
nationalzevinvestmentplan.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Environmental and Energy Study Institute. 2017. Fact Sheet - Plug-in Electric Vehicles (2017).
https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-plug-in-electric-vehicles-2017 (As of September 9,
2019).
Fanchao, L., E. Molin, and B. van Wee. “Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature review.”
Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 252-275. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794 (As of September 27, 2019).
Farzaneh, R., Y. Chen, J. Johnson, J. Zietsman, C. Gu, T. Ramani, L.D. White, M. Kenney, and Y.
Zhang. 2014. Accounting for Electric Vehicles in Air Quality Conformity‒Final Report. Texas
A&M Transportation Institute, Federal Highway Administration Cooperative Research Program.
Technical Report 0-6763-1. Available at: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-
6763-1.pdf (As of September 25, 2019).
Figenbaum, E. and M. Kolbenstvedt. 2016. Learning from Norwegian Battery Electric and Plug-in
Hybrid Vehicle users. Institute of Transport Economics Norwegian Centre for Transport
74

Research. Available at:

https://www.toi.no/getfile.php/1343167/Publikasjoner/T%C3%98I%20rapporter/2016/1492-
2016/Summary.pdf (As of September 27, 2019).
Fordham, D., J. Norris, and J. Proudfoot. 2015. Feasibility and Implications of Electric Vehicle (EV)
Deployment and Infrastructure Development. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C. Technical Report FHWA-HEP-15-021. Available at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/energy/publications/ev_deployment/fhwahe
p15021.pdf (As of September 27, 2019).
Gadh, R. 2018. Demonstrating Plug-in Electric Vehicles Smart Charging and Storage Supporting the
Grid. California Energy Commission Energy Research and Development Division, Final Project
Report CEC-500-2018-020. Available at: https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/2018publications/CEC-500-
2018-020/CEC-500-2018-020.pdf (As of September 27, 2019).
Greene, D.L., Z. Lin, and J. Dong. 2013. “Analyzing the sensitivity of hydrogen vehicle sales to
consumers’ preferences.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. 38, pp. 15857-15867.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.08.099 (As of September 25, 2019).
Hanley, S. 2019. “EV price parity coming soon, claims VW executive.” CleanTechnica, August 9.
Available at https://cleantechnica.com/2019/08/09/ev-price-parity-coming-soon-claims-vw-
executive (As of November 20, 2019).
Hartman, K. and E. Dowd. 2017. State Efforts to Promote Hybrid and Electric Vehicles. National
Conference of State Legislatures. Available at: http://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-
electric-vehicle-incentives-state-chart.aspx (As of March 29, 2019).
International Energy Agency. 2018. Global EV Outlook 2018. Available at:
https://webstore.iea.org/global-ev-outlook-2018 (As of September 27, 2019).
International Transport Forum. 2018. Towards Road Freight Decarbonisation - Trends, Measures and
Policies. TF Policy Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris. Available at: https://www.itf-
oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/towards-road-freight-decarbonisation_0.pdf (As of September
27, 2019).
Javid, R.J. and A. Nejat. 2017. “A comprehensive model of regional electric vehicle adoption and
penetration.” Transport Policy, Vol. 54, pp. 30-42. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.11.003 (As of September 25, 2019).
Jenn, A., I.M.L. Azevedo, and J.J. Michalek. 2016. “Alternative Fuel Vehicle Adoption Increases Fleet
Gasoline Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions under United States Corporate Average
Fuel Economy Policy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards.” Environmental Science &
Technology, Vol. 50(5), pp. 2165-2174. Available at:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b02842 (As of October 1, 2019).
Jin, L., and P. Slowik. 2017. Literature review of electric vehicle consumer awareness and outreach
activities. International Council on Clean Transportation, Working Paper 2017-03. Available at:
https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/Consumer-EV-Awareness_ICCT_Working-
Paper_23032017_vF.pdf (As of September 11, 2019).
75

Lambert, F. 2019. “GM is pushing for an affordable and profitable electric car.” Electrek, June 7.
Available at https://electrek.co/2019/06/07/gm-cheap-profitable-electric-car (As of November 20,
2019).
Larson, K., T. Houser, and S. Mohan. Sizing Up a Potential Fuel Economy Standards Freeze. Rhodium
Group. Available at: https://rhg.com/research/sizing-up-a-potential-fuel-economy-standards-
freeze/ (As of September 27, 2019).
Liao, F., E. Molin, and B. van Wee. 2017. “Consumer preferences for electric vehicles: a literature
review.” Transport Reviews, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 252-275. Available at:
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794 (As of September 25, 2019).
Lin, Z, and C. Liu. 2014. “Consumer-Segmented Vehicle Choice Modeling: the MA3T Model.” Presented
at the 2014 U.S. DOE Hydrogen Program and Vehicle Technologies Program Annual Merit
Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting. Available at
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/07/f18/van005_lin_2014_p.pdf (As of September
20, 2019).
Lin, Z., J. Dong, and D.L. Greene. 2013. “Hydrogen vehicles: Impacts of DOE technical targets on
market acceptance and societal benefits.” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Vol. 38, pp.
7973-7985. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.04.120 (As of September 25,
2019).
Lin, Z., and D.L. Greene. 2011. “Promoting the Market for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles:
Role of Recharge Availability.” Transportation Research Record, No. 2252, pp. 49-56. Available
at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.3141/2252-07 (As of March 29, 2019).
Lin, Z., and D.L. Greene. 2009. “A Plug-in Hybrid Consumer Choice Model with Detailed Market.”
Presented at the Transportation Research Board 2010 Annual Meeting. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254994821_A_Plug-
in_Hybrid_Consumer_Choice_Model_with_Detailed_Market_Segmentation (As of April 4,
2019).
Linnane, C. 2018. “Tesla shares move higher as analyst predicts strong demand and profitability in 2019.”
MarketWatch. Available at https://www.marketwatch.com/story/tesla-shares-jump-3-as-analyst-
predicts-strong-demand-and-profitability-in-2019-2018-12-26 (As of March 29, 2019).
Los Angeles Times. 2018. Anger in California’s carpool lanes as more than 200,000 drivers are set to
lose decals. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-clean-air-car-decals-
20180917-story.html (As of September 10, 2019).
Morrison, G., N. Veilleux and C. Powers. 2018. PEV Policy Evaluation Rubric: A Methodology for
Evaluating the Impact of State and Local Polices on Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption. National
Association of State Energy Officials and Cadmus. Available at:
https://naseo.org/Data/Sites/1/pevpolicyrubricmethodology_naseo.pdf (As of September 27,
2019).
Nanalyze. 2017. How many electric cars are there in the USA? Available at:
https://www.nanalyze.com/2017/03/electric-cars-usa/ (As of September 10, 2019).
76

National Academies Press. 2015. Overcoming Barriers to Deployment of Plug-in Electric Vehicles.
Committee on Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment; Board on Environmental
Systems; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Transportation Research Board;
National Research Council. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292131258_Overcoming_Barriers_to_Plug-
in_Electric_Vehicle_Deployment (As of March 29, 2019).
Nealer, R., D. Reichmuth, D. Anair, D. 2015. How Electric Cars Beat Gasoline Cars on Lifetime Global
Warming Emissions. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/11/Cleaner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-
full-report.pdf (As of September 23, 2019).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2019. NCDOT Releases Draft Plan to Boost Electric
Vehicle Registrations. August 22. Available at https://www.ncdot.gov/news/press-
releases/Pages/2019/2019-08-22-ncdot-draft-zev-plan-released.aspx (As of November 20, 2019).
Podkaminer, K., F. Xie, and Z. Lin. 2017. Analyzing the Impacts of a Biogas-to-Electricity Purchase
Incentive on Electric Vehicle Deployment with the MA3T Vehicle Choice Model. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-2017/14. Available at:
https://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/Files/Pub72437.pdf (As of September 25, 2019).
Reichmuth, D. and D. Anair. 2016. Electrifying the Vehicle Market: Evaluating Automaker Leaders and
Laggards in the United States. Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at:
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/08/Electrifying-Vehicle-Market-full-
report.pdf (As of September 27, 2019).
Rezvani, Z., J. Jansson, and J. Bodin. 2015. “Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: A
review and research agenda.” Transportation Research Part D, Vol. 34, pp. 122-136. Available
at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.010 (As of September 15, 2019).
Sheldon, T.L., and J.R. DeShazo. 2016. How does the presence of HOV lanes affect plug-in electric
vehicle adoption in California? A generalized propensity score approach. Available at:
https://innovation.luskin.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/
2019/03/How_Does_the_Presence_of_HOV_Lanes_Affect_PEV_Adoption_in_CA.pdf (As of
Shepardson, D. 2017. Hybrid, EV sales tumble in 2015. The Detroit News. Available at
https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/29565265 (as of September 24, 2019).
Sierra Club. 2017. REV UP Electric Vehicles: Multi-State Study of the Electric Vehicle Shopping
Experience. Sierra Club. Available at: https://content.sierraclub.org/creative-
archive/sites/content.sierraclub.org.creative-archive/files/pdfs/
1371%20Rev%20Up%20EVs%20Report_09_web.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Sierzchula, W., S. Bakker, K. Maat, and B. van Wee. 2014. “The influence of financial incentives and
other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption.” Energy Policy. Vol. 68, pp. 183-194.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.01.043 (As of September 25, 2019).
Slowik, P. and N. Lutsey. 2018. The Continued Transition to Electric Vehicles in U.S. Cities. The
International Council on Clean Transportation. Available at:
77

https://www.theicct.org/publications/continued-EV-transition-us-cities-2018 (As of September

27, 2019).
Smith, L.J. 2019. “Electric cars price parity to petrol and diesel is ‘near’ claims VW ahead of ID launch.”
Express, August 14. Available at https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1165209/Electric-cars-
price-parity-petrol-diesel-cars-VW-ID-Volkswagen (As of November 20, 2019).
State of Colorado, State of Idaho, State of Montana, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, and State of
Wyoming. 2017. Memorandum of Understanding between Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming: Regional Electric Vehicle Plan for the West. Available at:
https://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/60181006/vw-settlement-regional-electric-vehicle-plan-for-
the-west-mou.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
Stephens, T.S., R.S. Levenson, A. Brooker, C. Liu, Z. Lin, A. Birky, and E. Kontou. 2017. Comparison of
Vehicle Choice Models. Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems Division, ANL/ESD-
17/19. Available at: https://publications.anl.gov/anlpubs/2017/12/140846.pdf (As of September
25, 2019).
Sykes, M., and J. Axsen. 2017. “No free ride to zero-emissions: Simulating a region's need to implement
its own zero-emissions vehicle ZEV mandate to achieve 2050 GHG targets.” Energy Policy,
Volume 110, November 2017, Pages 447-460. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421517305347 (As of March 29, 2019).
Tal, G. and M.A. Nicholas. 2014. Exploring the Impact of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Access
on Plug-in Vehicle Sales and Usage in California. UC Davis, Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle
Research Center, Institute of Transportation Studies, UCD-ITS-RR-14-16. Available at:
https://merritt.cdlib.org/d/ark%3A%2F13030%2Fm5gm9njc/1/producer%2F893920341.pdf (As
of September 27, 2019).
United States Census. 2018. 2016 county business patterns. Available at
https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cbp/data/datasets.html (As of August 12, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 2016. Fuel Cell
Technologies Market Report 2016. U.S. DOE. Available at:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/10/f37/fcto_2016_market_report.pdf (As of March
29, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and National Renewable
Energy Laboratory. 2017. National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Analysis. U.S. DOE.
Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/69031.pdf (As of March 29, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2019a. Alternative Fuels
Data Center. Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/ (As of September 10, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2019b. Alternative Fuels
Data Center Laws and Regulations. Available at: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/ (As of September
10, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2019c. Alternative Fuels
Data Center Alternative fueling station counts by type (public only). Available at
https://afdc.energy.gov/stations/states (As of August 12, 2019)
78

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2019d. Alternative Fuels
Data Center: charging plug-in vehicles at home. Available at:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_home.html (As of September 10, 2019).
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2019e. Electric vehicles:
charging at home. Available at: https://www.energy.gov/eere/electricvehicles/charging-home (As
of September 10, 2019).
U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2017. Analysis of the Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicle Policies:
State-Level Incentives and the California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/transportation/zeroemissions/pdf/zero_emissions.pdf (As of
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis. 2019a. Annual Energy Outlook
2019. U.S. EIA. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ (As of June 20, 2019).
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis. 2019b. Summary of Legislation and
Regulations included in the Annual Energy Outlook 2019. U.S. EIA. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/summary.pdf (As of September 10, 2019).
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis. 2019c. Annual Energy Outlook 2019
Transportation Demand Module. U.S. EIA. Available at:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/transportation.pdf (As of September 10,
2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Transportation (2012) 2017 and later
model year light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and corporate average fuel economy
standards. 77 Federal Register 199, 62624-63200 (40 CFR Parts 85, 86, and 600). Available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2012-10-15/pdf/2012-21972.pdf (As of November 21,
2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. MOVES2014a User Guide. U.S. EPA. Available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100NNCY.pdf (As of June 20, 2019).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2019. Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas
Emissions 1990-2017. EPA-420-F-19-047, June. Available at
https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100WUHR.pdf (As of November 20, 2019).
U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. Alternative Fuel Corridors. Available at
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/alternative_fuel_corridors/resources/afc_handout/index.cf
m (As of November 20, 2019).
U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 2017. National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Analysis. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/69031.pdf (As of September 10,
2019).
University of California, Los Angeles. 2017. Factors Affecting Plug-In Electric Vehicle Sales in
California. California Air Resources Board Research Division, California Environmental
Protection Agency. Available at https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-303.pdf (as of
79

Voelcker, J. 2016. Plug-In Electric Car Sales for 2015 Fall Slightly from 2014. Available at
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1101751_plug-in-electric-car-sales-for-2015-fall-slightly-
from-2014 (as of September 24, 2019).
Volkswagen Group of America. 2017. National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 1. Available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-04/documents/nationalzevinvestmentplan.pdf
(As of November 21, 2019).
Washington State Department of Transportation. 2014. West Coast Green Highway. WSDOT. Available
at http://www.westcoastgreenhighway.com/electrichighway.htm (As of March 29, 2019).
Wolinetz, M., and J. Axsen. 2017 “How policy can build the plug-in electric vehicle market: Insights
from the Respondent-based Preference and Constraints (REPAC) model.” Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 2017, 117 (April), pp 238–250. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162516307570 (As of September 10,
2019).
80

ACRONYMS
AEO Annual Energy Outlook (of the U.S. EIA)
AFV Alternative Fuel Vehicle
ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
ATV Advanced Technology Vehicle
BEV Battery Electric Vehicle
CAFE California Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
DC Direct Current
DCFC Direct Current Fast Charger
DOE U.S. Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
EERE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (of the U.S. DOE)
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EMFAC The EMission FACtor Model
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (e.g., charging stations)
FCEV Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HEV Hybrid Electric Vehicle
HOT High-Occupancy Toll
HOV High-Occupancy Vehicle
ICEV Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle
IOUs Investor Owned Utilities
MA3T Market Acceptance of Advanced Automotive Technologies
MOVES The MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator
MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAICS National American Industry Classification System
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NREL National Renewal Energy Laboratory (of the U.S. DOE)
ORNL Oak Ridge National Laboratory
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PHEV Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle
REV West Regional Electric Vehicle Plan for the West
81

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric

SCE Southern California Edison
TEEM Transportation Energy Evolution Modeling
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ZEV Zero-Emission Vehicle
ZEVR Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations
82

APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTAL DATA

Table A-1. Estimated number of public charging stations and gas stations by state (2019)
State Electric Stations Gas stations
Alabama 117 3,128
Alaska 17 187
Arizona 442 1,639
Arkansas 76 1,540
California 5,275 7,471
Colorado 727 1,550
Connecticut 341 1,065
Delaware 51 247
District of Columbia 122 79
Florida 1,223 6,200
Georgia 796 5,002
Hawaii 268 264
Idaho 73 672
Illinois 496 3,803
Indiana 213 2,694
Iowa 127 1,769
Kansas 186 1,106
Kentucky 117 2,024
Louisiana 91 2,381
Maine 159 751
Maryland 608 1,537
83

Massachusetts 623 1,951
Michigan 405 3,703
Minnesota 332 2,103
Mississippi 61 1,961
Missouri 415 2,653
Montana 48 497
Nebraska 80 973
Nevada 256 780
New Hampshire 113 538
New Jersey 315 2,373
New Mexico 77 874
New York 1,389 4,696
North Carolina 612 4,501
North Dakota 22 467
Ohio 456 3,804
Oklahoma 76 1,861
Oregon 609 925
Pennsylvania 451 3,829
Rhode Island 86 306
South Carolina 243 2,558
South Dakota 37 615
Tennessee 386 3,398
Texas 1,159 10,599
84

Utah 233 778
Vermont 218 433
Virginia 591 3,069
Washington 889 1,862
West Virginia 88 970
Wisconsin 291 2,560
Wyoming 51 330
Source: United States Census 2018; United States Department of Energy 2019
Table A-2. Electrify America planned operational electric charging stations through
Cycle 2
Operational Stations - Operational Stations -

Quarter Year Outside of CA CA only*
Q4 2019 40 to 50 5 to 10
Q2 2020 80 to 100 635 to 880
Q4 2020 120 to 140 1315 to 1720
Q2 2021 160 to 180 1935 to 2610
Q4 2021 ~215 2605 to 3460
*Note that Electrify America expects to fund between 2,500 and 3,300 L2 home (and possibly workplace)
chargers as part of this spend in Cycle 2.
Source: Electrify America 2018 and 2019
Table A-3. Future California investor owned utilities (IOU)-planned electric charging
stations
SDG&Ea SCEb PG&Ec
Total new chargers 3,500 1,500 7,500
85

Targeted percentages
Workplace 50% 25% 50%
Home 50% 50% 50%
Public 0% 25% 0%
a
http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M158/K241/158241020.PDF
b
c
Table A-4. Default ZEV rebate amounts ($) in MA3T for the 50 states and Washington,
D.C.a
Default Default Default
State Rebate State Rebate State Rebate
Amount ($) Amount ($) Amount ($)
Alabama - Kentucky - North Dakota -
Alaska - Louisiana 3,000 Ohio -
Arizona 560 Maine - Oklahoma 1,500
Arkansas - Maryland 2,000 Oregon -
California 2,500 Massachusetts - Pennsylvania 3,000
Colorado 6,000 Michigan - Rhode Island 1,875
Connecticut - Minnesota - South Carolina 2,000
Delaware - Mississippi - South Dakota -
Washington, D.C. 2,800 Missouri - Tennessee 2,500
Florida - Montana - Texas 2,500
Georgia 5,000 Nebraska - Utah 605
Hawaii 4,500 Nevada - Vermont -
Idaho - New Hampshire - Virginia -
Illinois 4,083 New Jersey 2,800 Washington 2,600
Indiana - New Mexico - West Virginia -
Iowa 389 New York - Wisconsin -
Kansas - North Carolina - Wyoming -
a
For all states and Washington, D.C., the default rebate start year is 2011, and the default rebate duration
is five years.
Table A-5. Default manufacturer costs ($) for conventional spark ignition vehicles in
MA3Ta
Spark Ignition Spark Ignition Spark Ignition
Spark Ignition
Year Conventional Car Conventional Pickup Conventional Truck
Conventional Car
Sport Utility Vehicle Truck Sport Utility Vehicle
2020 16,079 16,006 18,129 16,921
86

Spark Ignition Spark Ignition Spark Ignition

Spark Ignition
Year Conventional Car Conventional Pickup Conventional Truck
Conventional Car
Sport Utility Vehicle Truck Sport Utility Vehicle
2021 16,122 16,053 18,171 16,955

2022 16,165 16,099 18,212 16,989
2023 16,208 16,146 18,253 17,023
2024 16,251 16,193 18,294 17,057
2025 16,293 16,240 18,335 17,091
2026 16,325 16,270 18,356 17,118
2027 16,356 16,299 18,377 17,144
2028 16,387 16,329 18,399 17,171
2029 16,419 16,359 18,420 17,198
2030 16,450 16,388 18,441 17,224
2031 16,485 16,347 18,471 17,242
2032 16,520 16,305 18,501 17,260
2033 16,555 16,264 18,531 17,278
2034 16,590 16,223 18,561 17,296
2035 16,625 16,181 18,591 17,313
2036 16,600 16,158 18,536 17,278
2037 16,576 16,135 18,480 17,243
2038 16,551 16,112 18,425 17,207
2039 16,527 16,089 18,369 17,172
2040 16,502 16,066 18,314 17,137
2041 16,477 16,043 18,258 17,101
2042 16,453 16,020 18,202 17,066
2043 16,428 15,997 18,147 17,031
2044 16,404 15,974 18,091 16,996
2045 16,379 15,951 18,036 16,960
2046 16,354 15,928 17,980 16,925
2047 16,330 15,905 17,925 16,890
2048 16,305 15,882 17,869 16,854
2049 16,281 15,859 17,814 16,819
2050 16,256 15,836 17,758 16,784
a
Costs of ZEV technology class variants (e.g., BEV with 100-mile range, BEV with 200-mile range, and
BEV with 300-mile range) were set equal to the costs of the corresponding conventional vehicles in the
cost parity C1 simulations
87

Figure A-1. Annual average gasoline prices calculated from U.S. Energy Information
Administration data, showing a linear fit (dashed line) and slope (m). Data source: U.S.
EIA (https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/)
88

Figure A-2. U.S. Energy Information Administration data for diesel prices, showing a
linear fit (dashed line) and slope (m). Data source: U.S. EIA
(https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/)
89

Figure A-3. Modeled reductions of criteria pollutant and HC emissions, where reductions
averaged across the pollutants are greater than 3%.
90

averaged across the pollutants are between 1% and 3%.
91

averaged across the pollutants are 1% or less, and greater than 0.1%.
92

Figure A-6. Modeled reductions of four of eight modeled MSATs emissions, where
reductions averaged across the pollutants are greater than 3%.
93

reductions averaged across the pollutants are between 1% and 3%.
94

reductions averaged across the pollutants are less than 1% and greater than 0.1%.
95

Figure A-9. Modeled reductions of remaining four modeled MSATs emissions, where
reductions averaged across the pollutants are greater than 3%.
96

reductions averaged across the pollutants are between 1% and 3%.
97

reductions averaged across the pollutants are 1% or less, and greater than 0.1%.
98

Figure A-12. Modeled reductions of GHG emissions, where reductions averaged across the
pollutants are greater than 3%.
99

pollutants are between 1% and 3%.
100

pollutants are 1% or less and greater than 0.1%.
101

ENDNOTES
i
At the time this report was prepared (2019), federal actions were pending to change California’s historic authority
to enact its own vehicle standards. This report does not address the status of these actions.
ii
ZEV populations in 2040 were estimated as follows: (1) for the AEO data, stock data was taken directly from the
2019 AEO data table (https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=49-
AEO2019&cases=ref2019&sourcekey=0); (2) for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ ATV Sales
Dashboard data, populations for 2017 and 2040 were estimated as cumulative sales by summing (a) for 2017, sales
from 2005 through 2010 (estimated assuming linear growth between an assumed 2005 ZEV sales of zero and the
historical sales data for 2011) and historical sales from 2011 through 2017; and (b) for 2040, the cumulative sales in
2017, the historical 2018 sales, and sales from 2019 through 2040 (assuming linear growth in sales between 2018
2040); and (3) for the MA3T model, estimates of 2040 ZEV populations using all default input values were taken
directly from model output.
iii
The MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) is a state-of-the-science emission modeling system developed
by the U.S. EPA that estimates emissions for mobile sources at the national, county, and project level for criteria air
pollutants, greenhouse gases, and air toxics.
iv
The total population of short- and long-wheel base light-duty vehicles in 2017 was equal to approximately 300
million vehicles (https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances).
v
Total U.S. GHG emissions in 2017 as CO2 equivalent were 6,457 million metric tons
(https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#colorbox-hidden).
102

Zero Emission Vehicles Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zero Emission Vehicles Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/25709 SHARE

Zero Emission Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and

109 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2019. Zero Emission

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Zero Emission Vehicles:

Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 115

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Zero Emission Vehicles: Forecasting Fleet Scenarios and their

Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 115

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATI VE RESEAR CH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 274

NCHRP PROJECT 25-25 PANEL

Antony F. Opperman, Virginia DOT, Richmond, VA (Chair)

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4.3 Assumptions for Cost Parity Scenarios ....................................................................................... 38

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

o Negative attitude towards new technology

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 1 BACKGROUND AND APPROACH

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 2 BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW TO SUPPORT MODELING

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 1. Inputs in MA3T Model.

Focus on the MA3T model included two main areas:

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Table 2. Number of Resources Reviewed by Topic Area.

Forecast Historical Consumer Policies Technology Infrastructure Other

Table 3. Literature and Data Sources Reviewed.

Title Author Publication

Advanced Technology Vehicle Sales Dashboard Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers 2019

Alternative Fuels Data Center U.S. DOE 2019

Annual Energy Outlook 2019 U.S. EIA 2019

National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Electrify America 2019

Annual Energy Outlook 2018 U.S. EIA 2018

BP Energy Outlook – 2018 Edition British Petroleum 2018

California ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 2 Electrify America 2018

Demonstrating Plug-in Electric Vehicles Smart R. Gadh 2018

Global EV Outlook 2018 International Energy Agency 2018

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Title Author Publication

The Continued Transition to Electric Vehicles in P. Slowik and N. Lutsey 2018

The Road Ahead for Zero-Emission Vehicles in Beacon Economics 2018

Towards Road Freight Decarbonisation - International Transport Forum 2018

Zero-Emission Vehicles – Fact Sheet California Public Utilities Commission 2018

Analysis of the Effect of Zero-Emission Vehicle U.S. EIA 2017

Comparison of Vehicle Choice Models T.S. Stephens, R.S. Levinson, A. 2017

Literature Review of Electric Vehicle Consumer L. Jin and P. Slowik 2017

National Plug-In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure U.S. NREL 2017

National ZEV Investment Plan: Cycle 1 Volkswagen Group of America 2017

No free ride to zero-emissions: Simulating a M. Sykes and J. Axsen 2017

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Title Author Publication