Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle

batteries in residential and utility-level applications
Dipti Kamath a, Siddharth Shukla a, Renata Arsenault b, Hyung Chul Kim b, Annick Anctil a,⇑
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
b
Research & Innovation Center, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48121, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The volume of end-of-life automotive batteries is increasing rapidly as a result of growing electric vehicle
Received 1 February 2020 adoption. Most automotive lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are recycled but could be repurposed as second-
Revised 19 May 2020 life batteries (SLBs) since they have 70–80% residual capacity, which can be adequate for stationary appli-
Accepted 25 May 2020
cations. SLBs have been proposed as potential, inexpensive, low-carbon energy storage for residential and
Available online xxxx
utility-level applications, with or without photovoltaics (PV). However, it is unknown whether SLBs will
be better than new batteries and whether SLBs will provide similar cost and carbon emission reduction
Keywords:
for the different stationary applications in all locations. This work compared the levelized cost of electric-
Second-life battery
Rooftop PV
ity and life-cycle carbon emissions associated with using SLBs and new LIBs in the US for three energy
Peak shaving storage applications: (1) residential energy storage with rooftop PV, (2) utility-level PV firming, and
PV firming (3) utility-level peak-shaving, leading to a total of 41 scenarios. SLBs reduced the levelized cost of elec-
Life-cycle assessment tricity by 12–57% and carbon emissions by 7–31% compared to new LIBs in the considered applications,
with higher reductions for utility-level applications. SLBs still provided benefits at the residential level
when compared to rooftop PV alone by reducing the levelized cost by 15–25% and carbon emissions
by 22–51%, making SLBs attractive to residential consumers as well. SLBs offer an opportunity to utilize
an end-of-life product for energy storage applications, provided the uncertainty in SLB quality and avail-
ability is addressed.
Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
With the growing electric vehicle adoption, the volume of end-
of-life automotive batteries is increasing rapidly in the US (Ai et al.,
2019) and globally (Stringer and Ma, 2018). Most electric vehicles
(EVs) are powered by rechargeable lithium-ion battery (LIB) sys-
tems, which are typically replaced when their capacity is reduced
by 20 to 30% (Canals Casals et al., 2019; Tong et al., 2017). EV LIBs
are responsible for approximately 30% of the EV manufacturing
cost (Lutsey and Nicholas, 2019) and 37% of the EV manufacturing
carbon footprint (Kim et al., 2016).
Recycling is the main end-of-life (EOL) management method for
automotive LIBs, and once fully established, it could provide rev-
enue and reduce the energy consumption and carbon emissions
compared to battery production with virgin materials (Qiao et al.,
2019; Xiong et al., 2020). However, LIB recycling is still in a devel-
opmental stage, and some of the challenges are the low volumes of
collected LIBs, low governmental support in certain parts of the
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: anctilan@msu.edu (A. Anctil).
world, and uncertainties associated with the full recycling costs
(Mayyas et al., 2019). Additionally, LIB chemistries are moving
towards cheaper low-cobalt and high-nickel chemistries, which
can further reduce recycling revenues (Mayyas et al., 2019;
Wuschke et al., 2019). Including other EV parts, such as power
electronics and magnets, in the recycling stream can still increase
the recycling profit (D’Adamo and Rosa, 2019).
Previous studies have suggested combining recycling with
repurposing and reuse (Choi and Rhee, 2020; D’Adamo and Rosa,
2019), which can help utilize the remaining 70–80% capacity in
EOL batteries. Repurposing EOL batteries as second-life batteries
(SLBs) involves disassembling batteries to the module- or cell-
level, inspecting, repairing, testing, and repacking of cells or mod-
ules into battery packs that meet original equipment manufactur-
ers’ quality requirements. Using SLBs can increase EV LIB life while
reducing primary raw material extraction, cumulative energy
demand, and carbon emissions compared to new battery manufac-
turing (Ahmadi et al., 2017, 2014; Canals Casals et al., 2019;
Cicconi et al., 2012; Richa et al., 2017a, 2017b). The high capital
costs associated with new LIBs can hinder the large-scale deploy-
ment of energy storage (Bhatnagar et al., 2013), which could also

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
0956-053X/Ó 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
2 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
be overcome with SLBs (Cready et al., 2003; Neubauer et al., 2012).
While the purchase price of new LIBs was reported to be $209/kWh
in 2017 (Chediak, 2017), those for SLBs are expected to be lower.
Earlier studies and reports have estimated SLB price to be $38–
147/kWh (Canals Casals et al., 2019; Cready et al., 2003;
Desarnaud, 2019; Neubauer et al., 2012), which are expected to fall
in the future (Canals Casals et al., 2019; Sun et al., 2018).
1.1. SLBs in stationary applications
In residential applications, energy storage is either used to
leverage time-of-use pricing or increase self-consumption of roof-
top solar generation and consequently results in cost and carbon
savings. Adding lithium-ion batteries to rooftop PV in the US can
reduce the electricity cost by increasing PV self-consumption by
up to 17% (Tervo et al., 2018). However, studies have identified
the capital cost of adding LIBs as a limitation to the associated elec-
tricity cost reduction (Johann and Madlener, 2014; Uddin et al.,
2017). To address this, many studies have considered SLBs as an
alternative and have found electricity cost reductions when adding
SLBs to residential PV systems in Portugal (Assunção et al., 2016),
the UK (Gladwin et al., 2013), Germany (Madlener and Kirmas,
2017), and certain locations in China (Bai et al., 2019). Typically,
SLBs are not economical for leveling residential loads alone with-
out PV (Heymans et al., 2014; Mirzaei Omrani and Jannesari, 2019).
Life-cycle assessment (LCA) studies, mostly European case stud-
ies, have shown SLB use with rooftop PV to reduce the carbon foot-
print (Bobba et al., 2018; Cusenza et al., 2019), in some cases
subject to the carbon emissions of the electricity generation
sources and battery efficiency (Faria et al., 2014). In a previous
study, the locational differences—PV generation, electricity price,
and electricity generation sources— were found to impact the leve-
lized cost of electricity and carbon footprint of using SLBs for com-
mercial fast-charging (Kamath et al., 2020). However, the effect of
these differences for residential applications with SLBs has not
been studied widely, nor have SLBs been compared with new LIBs.
Potential utility-level applications of new LIBs, as well as SLBs,
include renewables (PV) firming and peak shaving (Hossain et al.,
2019). PV firming with energy storage supplements PV generation
to maintain steady power output for integration into the electricity
grid (Ferreira et al., 2014). On the other hand, peak shaving with
energy storage reduces the power demand during peak times, reduc-
ing the need for peaking generators, which are operated only during
high demand times (Denholm et al., 2019). This, in turn, reduces high
peak time electricity costs. Based on a US-based study that evaluated
the potential value of using SLBs in utility-level applications, SLBs
generated revenue for both PV firming and peak shaving (Neubauer
and Pesaran, 2011). However, the study did not include balance-of-
system costs and had considerable uncertainty from assumed
depth-of-discharge, discharge duration, and revenue benefit range.
Studies on energy storage—new LIBs and SLBs—for PV firming
have typically focused on system design to reduce variation in
PV production (Cardo-Miota et al., 2019; Karandeh et al., 2019;
Patel et al., 2020; Saez-de-Ibarra et al., 2016) and not carbon emis-
sions explicitly. For peak shaving, using SLBs lowered the carbon
emissions compared to using lead-acid batteries (Richa et al.,
2017b, 2017a) and electricity generated from natural gas
(Ahmadi et al., 2014; Sathre et al., 2015). However, these studies
modeled generalized conditions of battery cycling (daily dis-
charges) or electricity generation (coal power plants). SLBs can
be cheaper than new LIBs, but they can also have a comparatively
shorter life, needing more frequent replacement. Therefore, to
understand the relative benefits of using SLBs for residential and
utility level applications, SLBs need to be compared with new LIBs
or existing baseline technologies, based on their associated leve-
lized cost of electricity and carbon emissions.
Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
SLBs can potentially provide inexpensive, low-carbon energy
storage. However, it is unknown whether SLBs will be better or
worse than new batteries and whether SLBs will provide similar
cost and carbon emission reduction for residential and utility level
stationary applications in all locations. Previous studies have
determined the cost or life-cycle carbon emissions of SLB use in
residential and utility-level applications for specific locations and
generalized load demands. It is important to compare the applica-
tions under different scenarios of electricity pricing, electricity grid
carbon intensity, electricity consumption needs, and solar insola-
tion, as these locational factors can impact the cost and carbon
emissions of SLB applications. We sought to ascertain the relative
levelized cost of electricity and life-cycle carbon emissions of SLBs
and new LIBs in the US for three applications: residential energy
storage, utility-level photovoltaic firming, and utility-level peak
shaving. We also compared SLB use to the existing conventional
technology (baseline) for the application, and thereby inform
strategic prioritization of second-life EV battery use.
2. Methods
Three applications for new LIBs and SLBs were considered: (1)
residential energy storage, (2) utility-level PV firming, and (3)
utility-level peak-shaving, in the US, leading to a total of 41 scenar-
ios. Fig. 1 shows the three applications, along with the scenarios con-
sidered, the corresponding energy system components, and the
demand + battery storage profiles. The levelized cost of electricity
for each application scenario was calculated by minimizing the net
present value of system components that met the electricity demand
(see Section 2.1). Using life-cycle assessment, the carbon emissions
for each scenario were calculated based on a 10-year project lifetime,
excluding the first-life and transportation of SLBs, and the end-of-life
treatment of the system (see Section 2.2). Five locations were cho-
sen—Detroit, Los Angeles, New York City, Phoenix, and Portland—
due to their diversity in solar radiation, climate, electricity pricing,
and electricity grid carbon intensity. Section 2.3 provides the details
of the load/consumption, the scenarios, and the energy system com-
ponents in each scenario for each application.
2.1. Levelized cost of electricity for SLB applications
A net present value approach was used to determine the eco-
nomically optimal energy system for each scenario using the
Homer Pro software (HOMER PRO Version 3.7 User Manual, 2016).
We ran multiple simulations of energy systems for each scenario,
with differing component capacities that met the electricity
demand over the project life of 10 years from 2017 to 2027. The
energy system with the minimum net present cost was determined
along with the component capacities, i.e. the amount of electricity
purchased from the grid (kWh), the SLB capacity (kWh), the PV
capacity (kW), and the inverter capacity (kW). The net present cost
(NPC) can be obtained using Eq. (1) (He et al., 2018; HOMER PRO
Version 3.7 User Manual, 2016), where CAnn is the annualized cost,
CRF is the capital recovery factor (given in Eq. (2)), i is the discount
rate, and N is the number of years.
cAnn
NPC ¼ ð1Þ
CRF
N
ið1 þ iÞ
CRF ¼ N
ð2Þ
ð1 þ iÞ  1
The annualized cost was used to compare the yearly cost
incurred in SLB-based scenarios with those in new LIB-based sce-
narios and the baseline. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
and economic payback time were other metrics used to compare
 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx 3

Fig. 1. Summary of scenarios considered and energy system components for (a) residential energy storage, (b) utility-level PV firming, and (c) utility-level peak shaving, with
the different components considered. The demand + battery storage profiles show the typical load demand, PV production, and battery charge and discharge for the battery
storage scenario.

SLB with the baseline. The LCOE is calculated by dividing the annu-
alized cost by the annual electricity consumption of the scenario as
given in Eq. (3) (HOMER PRO Version 3.7 User Manual, 2016). The
economic payback time was calculated for residential applications
by dividing the net present cost of the SLB, PV, and inverter (the
‘‘investment”) by the annual electricity cost savings due to the
reduction in grid purchase. The economic payback time or PT is cal-
culated using Eq. (4) (He et al., 2018).
cAnn
LCOE ¼
Electricity ser v ed
Excess of the alternate system
PT ¼ Savings from the alternate system
¼ Annualized cost of battery storage;PV; and invertor
Savings from the alternate system
Table 1 summarizes the assumptions used as inputs in Homer
Pro for the project life and discount factor, along with the price
and performance details of the PV, SLB, and inverter. A 30% rebate
on the system purchase (the PV and inverter system) was assumed
based on the 2017 Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit, which
has been scaled down to 26% in 2020 (U.S. Internal Revenue
Service, 2018). The rebate can only be applied to the portion of
the battery system charged from PV, not the grid. A battery
charged only by PV would receive a 30% rebate, while a battery
that is charged 20% of the time by PV would receive only a 6%
rebate. The yearly solar radiation profiles and temperature data
were obtained from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s
(NREL’s) National Solar Radiation Database (Sengupta et al.,
2018) and the NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy Data-
base (Stackhouse, 2011), respectively.
Fig. 2 presents the hourly and seasonal variation in the 2017
residential electricity pricing structures from the main utilities in
each location (Arizona Public Service Electric Company, 2017;
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., 2012; DTE
Electric Company, 2014; Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, 2017; Portland General Electric Company, 2017), which
were used in this study. Table 2 provides the specific pricing plan
for each location and the corresponding summer months. The elec-
tricity pricing structure in Portland varied only on an hourly basis,
while the one in Los Angeles was characterized by seasonal varia-
tion with high prices during the summer afternoons. New York City
had a pricing structure with a combination of hourly and season-
ally variation. The increase in the residential electricity prices over
ð3Þ the period of 2017–2027 was based on the US EIA projections (U.S.
Energy Information Administration, 2018a). For PV firming, the
electricity prices were obtained from the regional prices reported
by the US EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2018 (U.S. Energy
Information Administration, 2018b). For peak shaving, overnight
ð4Þ
cost, fuel cost, and plant efficiency were based on previous studies
on natural gas peaking plant and energy storage (Denholm et al.,
2019; Lin and Damato, 2011; U.S. Energy Information
Administration, 2016; U.S Environmental Protection Agency,
2019). The baseload generation cost for charging the battery was
assumed to be $0.1/kWh based on the average cost of electricity
over the last ten years (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2017).
2.2. Life-cycle carbon emissions for SLB applications
For each scenario, the grid purchase and capacities of PV, SLB,
and inverter were used to calculate the life-cycle global warming
potential (GWP) at each location. The life-cycle GWP of the appli-
cation scenarios, excluding the SLB first-life and the end-of-life
treatment of the system, was calculated over 10 years using the
TRACI 2.1 method (Bare, 2011) in SimaPro v8.5 (PRé
Sustainability, 2018) software. The functional unit defines the
function, or the service provided by the considered system or
application. Therefore, for this study, the functional unit changed

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
4 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Assumptions for efficiency and costs of system components along with other project details for the reference year of 2017.

Parameters Unit Value Ref.

SLB New LIB
Battery cost $/kWh 65 209 (Cready et al., 2003; Neubauer et al., 2012, Chediak, 2017)
Battery roundtrip % 91% 95% (Assunção et al., 2016; Bobba et al., 2018; DTE Energy Advanced
efficiency Implementation of Energy Storage Technologies Final Technology
Performance Report)
Battery lifetime kWh/kWh 2,000 3,400 (Ahmadi et al., 2014, 2017; Assunção et al., 2016;
throughput Debnath et al., 2016)
PV module cost $/kW 600 for utility level, 650 for (Fu et al., 2017)
residential level
PV derating factor % 90.50% (Fu et al., 2017)
PV module lifetime years 30 (Fu et al., 2017)
Inverter cost $/kW 100 for utility level, 130 for (Fu et al., 2017)
residential level
Inverter efficiency % 98% (Fu et al., 2017)
Inverter lifetime years 15 (Fu et al., 2017)
Project lifetime years 10 Assumed
Discount rate % 6.9% (Fu et al., 2017)
Inflation rate % 2.5% (Fu et al., 2017)
PV rebate % 30% only for residential (U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 2018)
level

Fig. 2. Hourly and seasonal residential electricity pricing structures for all locations. Electricity prices increase from blue (low) to red (high). The variation in time-of-use price
is denoted as hourly or seasonal for each location. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

with each application. For instance, the functional unit for the res-
idential application was the delivery of electricity to meet the
demand of the house with or without EV charging over the project
lifetime of 10 years. For PV firming, the functional unit was the
delivery of one kWh of firmed PV output over 10 years, whereas,
for peak shaving, it was the delivery of electricity to meet one
kWh of peak demand over 10 years. We also considered a second
functional unit for the residential application to compare it with
the utility-level applications, where we calculated the GWP for
every kWh of electricity delivered to meet the demand of the house
with or without EV charging over the project lifetime.
The life-cycle inventories for the PV system and other material
inputs were taken from Ecoinvent 3 (Wernet et al., 2016) and
DATASMART LCI databases (LTS, 2016). The DATASMART inventory
for electricity was updated with the mix of fuels representative of
the 2016 US EPA eGRID subregion for each location (also shown in
Table 2) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018). The EV SLB
inventory was based on a previous publication on electric vehicle
lithium-ion battery manufacturing (Kim et al., 2016) and the
repurposing process was assumed to take place in the US. Com-
pared to a new lithium-ion battery, the material required for the
enclosure was assumed to be 30%, while the same amount of pri-
mary energy for pack assembly was required, as assumed in previ-
ous work (Kamath et al., 2020). Details of the life-cycle inventory
are provided in Section S3 of the Supplementary Material. The
assessment excluded the first-life and transportation of SLBs and
the EOL treatment of the system.
2.3. Scenarios considered
2.3.1. Residential energy storage application
Two energy demand cases were considered for the residential
energy storage system application. In the first one, the system
was designed to meet the residential energy storage demand (Case
R). In the second case, the electricity required to charge an EV was
added to the residential energy storage demand (Case REV). Fig. 1
(a) shows the three residential energy storage application scenar-
ios, grid only (R0/REV0), grid with PV (R1/REV1), grid with PV
and battery (R2/REV2), where the consumption corresponds to res-
idential energy storage (R) and with the additional demand of EV
charging (REV). The demand and battery storage profiles for the
application are also shown for the scenario where the rooftop PV
is complemented by an energy storage system and the excess gen-
eration is stored for later use.
The residential electricity consumption profiles for representa-
tive buildings were modeled for all locations using NREL’s BEOpt
software (Christensen et al., 2006). The structural, thermal, and
electrical components of the house were selected from building
and thermal codes of the respective locations using the same
methodology as in previous work (Kamath et al., 2019; Shukla
et al., n.d.). The weather files for the locations were taken from
the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) compiled by NREL
(Wilcox and Marion, 2008). The EV was assumed to have a 30
kWh battery that charged with a 6.6 kW Level 1 home charger
for four hours per day. The charging was assumed to start either

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Table 2
Utility and electricity pricing structure, and eGRID region for residential application in the five cities.
City eGRID region (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 2018)
Detroit, MI WECC California (CAMX)
Los Angeles, CA RFC Michigan (RFCM)
New York City, NY NPCC NYC/Westchester (NYCW)
Phoenix, AZ WECC Southwest (AZNM)
Portland, OR WECC Northwest (NWPP)
at 8 pm or when low time-of-use pricing began, whichever was
later (Idaho National Laboratory, 2015).
For case R, three scenarios were considered with different sys-
tem components. For R0, we considered the electricity grid only;
for R1, PV was added to the grid; and R2, SLB was added to R1.
R2n was a sub-scenario of R2 with new LIBs instead of SLBs. Sim-
ilarly, three scenarios were also considered for case REV with EV
charging. For REV0, we considered the electricity grid only; for
REV1, a PV was connected to the grid with PV; and for REV2, SLB
was added to REV1. Similar to R2n, REV2n was a sub-scenario of
REV2 with new LIBs instead of SLBs. The rooftop PV size was
assumed to 5 kW.
2.3.2. Utility-level PV firming application
The utility-level PV-firming application considered a 5 MW
utility-level PV plant connected to the electric grid. The baseline
scenario, denoted as PVF0, consisted of 5 MW of installed PV mod-
ules, without energy storage. Energy storage reduce fluctuations in
PV generation due to cloud coverage or solar angle and to obtain
steady or, in other words, ‘firmed’ PV output from a PV plant. SLBs
or new LIBs were charged when the PV generation was above a
preset threshold and discharged when the PV generation fell below
the threshold. PVF1 considered the 5 MW PV plant with SLB for
firming. PVF1n was a sub-scenario of PVF1 with new LIBs instead
of SLBs. The scenarios are illustrated in Fig. 1(b), along with the
typical firming operation showing a steady PV output with energy
storage.
The hourly global horizontal irradiance (GHI) (Wilcox and
Marion, 2008) was merged with the 1-second firming duty-cycle
from (Schoenwald and Ellison, 2016) (also shown in Supplemen-
tary Information (SM) Section S1) to simulate the fluctuating PV
output from a utility-level PV plant. The obtained PV output was
converted to a signal with 1-minute averaged interval, since PV
firming is characterized by limiting the signal fluctuations in a 1–
15 min time interval (Schoenwald and Ellison, 2016). The firmed
signal was obtained using a 3rd order least squares estimator
(LSE) filter, also known as the Savitzky-Golay filter over a 15-
minute moving time window, as proposed in previous literature
(Atif and Khalid, 2020). Eq. (5) represents the general equation
used for a Savitzky-Golay filter.
Pn
i¼n Ai ykþi
ðyk Þs ¼ P n : ð5Þ
i¼n Ai
where Ai is the set of weighted coefficients or convolution integers
derived each time from the constituents of the moving window.
2.3.3. Utility-level peak shaving application
The peak shaving application was modeled to meet the peak
demand by using either conventional peaking power from natural
gas or energy storage (SLB and new LIB). Since the peak shaving
Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
5
Electricity pricing structure (residential) details
Utility (Pricing Plan) (Reference) Summer months
DTE Energy (Residential Time-of-Use Service) (DTE Electric Company, 2014) Jun-Oct
LADWP (Time-of-Use Residential Rate (R-1B)) (Los Angeles Department Jun-Sept
of Water and Power, 2017)
Consolidated Edison (Time of Use Rates: Residential) (Consolidated Jun-Sept
Edison Company of New York Inc., 2012)
Arizona Public Service (Rate schedule R-3: Residential Service Saver May-Oct
Choice Max) (Arizona Public Service Electric Company, 2017)
Portland General (Schedule 7: Residential Service) ( Portland General No difference
Electric Company, 2017)
application was modeled for a region’s demand and not a location,
it was evaluated for two states—Michigan and Oregon, chosen due
to the differences in their electricity demands and the carbon emis-
sions associated with their electricity generation. The peak shaving
operation depends on the demand profile as the peaking capacity is
determined based on the peak demand. Since state-level demand
data was not readily available, we used the historic generation data
from all of the balancing authorities operating in a state and pro-
portionally reduced the data to match the annual demand of the
corresponding state in the year 2017. Michigan’s electricity
demand was obtained by reducing the Midwest Independent Sys-
tem Operator generation data proportionally to Michigan’s annual
demand (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019a). For Ore-
gon, the demand was obtained by reducing the generation data
from Bonneville Power Administration and Portland General Elec-
tric Company proportionally to Oregon’s annual demand (U.S.
Energy Information Administration, 2019a).
Similar to the NREL report on the potential of battery storage
peaking power (Denholm et al., 2019), we determined the net peak
demand target to be 80% of the annual peak. Any load below this
threshold was met by the baseload electricity grid power and
any demand above it was denoted as peak demand. The system
components for the two scenarios considered to meet the peak
demand are (1) PS0: Electricity grid with an added natural gas
power plant, and (2) PS1: Electricity grid with an added SLB storage
for peak shaving. PS1n is a sub-scenario with new LIBs used instead
of SLBs in PS1. The baseload generation that was used to charge the
battery energy storage was assumed to be the present generation
without the peaking capacity natural gas generation. The natural
gas peaking plant was assumed to have a capacity equal to 20%
of maximum demand and the costs were based on the US EIA
assumptions (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016). The
peak shaving scenarios, PS0 and PS1, are shown in Fig. 1 (c) along
with the modified demand profile with the reduced peak demand
when using energy storage.
3. Results
3.1. Residential application
The residential electricity demand for each location without EV
charging was modeled in BEOpt. Phoenix had the highest electric-
ity demand in both summer and winter since electricity is used for
both heating and cooling, whereas natural gas is used for heating in
other locations. The annual electricity demand for each location is
shown in Fig. 3 and is also available in the SM Section S4. Based on
the modeled electricity demand for each location, the energy sys-
tem components with the minimum net present cost were deter-
mined, along with the associated LCOE and life-cycle GWP for all
scenarios. Tables S3 and S4 provide the component capacities,
the annualized cost, LCOE, and GWP for all scenarios of the residen-
6 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 3. Annual residential electricity demand without EV charging, as modeled in BEOpt, for (a) Detroit, (b) Los Angeles, (c) New York City, (d) Phoenix, and (e) Portland.

tial energy storage application (R) and residential energy storage
application with EV charging (REV), respectively.
The battery capacity required with the 5 kW residential rooftop
PV was dependent on whether EV charging was considered or not
and also on the solar insolation (higher capacity to store higher PV
generation) or the battery type (higher capacity with lower round-
trip efficiency of SLBs). For the residential energy storage applica-
tion (R), a SLB capacity of 15–20 kWh was required with the
rooftop PV (R2), while a new LIB capacity of 5–15 kWh was
required (R2n). Locations with higher solar insolation needed the
highest battery capacities to store the excess PV generation. For
residential energy storage with EV charging (REV), a similar SLB
capacity of 15–20 kWh was required (REV2), while the required
capacity for new LIBs was 5–20 kWh (REV2n). The battery capacity
requirement did not change drastically with the addition of EV
charging since the extra electricity demand occurred at night
(low-peak pricing time). The capacity requirement in Los Angeles,
however, was 20 kWh for both SLBs and new LIBs since the elec-
tricity purchase had to be reduced due to the high low peak pricing
(as seen in Fig. 2).
Fig. 4 shows the LCOE, GWP, and economic payback time for the
residential energy storage application with and without EV charg-
ing. Replacing new LIBs with SLBs for residential rooftop PV
reduced the LCOE by 14–27% for residential energy storage appli-

Fig. 4. Levelized cost of electricity and global warming potential for SLBs in the residential energy storage application in (a) Detroit, (b) Los Angeles, (c) New York City, (d)
Phoenix, and (e) Portland; (f) Economic payback time of all scenarios for all the locations. The LCOE, GWP, and payback time when using SLBs (R2/REV2) are compared to Grid
only (R0/REV0), Grid with PV (R1/REV1), and Grid with PV using new LIBs (R2n/REV2n).

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx 7

Fig. 5. Levelized cost of electricity and global warming potential for (a) PV firming application for scenarios: PVF0 (PV only), PVF1 (PV firmed with SLB) and PVF1n (PV firmed
with new LIB), and (b) Peak shaving application for scenarios: PS0 (Natural gas), PS1 (SLB), PS1n (new LIB).

cation (R2 vs. R2n) and by 7–15% when adding EV charging
demand (REV2 vs. REV2n). Irrespective of whether EV charging
was added or not, SLBs reduced the LCOE when added to rooftop
PV compared to grid only scenario (R0/ REV0) as well as rooftop
PV only scenario (R1/REV1). Our LCOE results for new LIBs with
PV were similar to those obtained for the US-based study ($0.11–
0.16/kWh) (Tervo et al., 2018). Our results showed that adding
SLBs to PV provided an average annual cost reduction of $343 in
the US, comparable with a study that found a cost reduction of ~
$313/ year for an average house in Portugal (Assunção et al.,
2016). Another study also found adding SLBs with PV to be prof-
itable in Stuttgart, Germany (Madlener and Kirmas, 2017).
The addition of the EV charging demand (REV) did not increase
the LCOE savings substantially even with an increase in electricity
consumption, leading to lower percentage savings in all locations.
The LCOE reduction for the residential applications (R and REV)
depended on the electricity pricing structure. For residential
energy storage application (R), a seasonally varying pricing struc-
ture along with high solar insolation led to maximum percentage
savings in electricity cost, as seen in Los Angeles (53% with rebate).
In contrast, when EV charging was added, SLBs with PV (REV2) had
the maximum percentage savings compared to the baseline (REV0)
when pricing structures varied both daily and seasonally. The
hourly variation in the electricity pricing was important since the
EV charging occurred at low-peak times, and the locations with
hourly variation had lower LCOE when EV charging was added to
residential energy storage demand. This effect was most promi-
nent in cities with high differences in electricity pricing, such as
New York City, where the LCOE halved for all scenarios when EV
charging was included, compared to meeting the residential
energy storage demand only.
Compared to new LIBs (R2n), the life-cycle GWP reduced by 10–
44% for the residential energy storage demand, as shown by the bar
graphs in Fig. 4 (a)-(e). When adding the EV charging demand, the
GWP reduction for SLB (REV2) was lower in all locations (2–16%)
compared to new LIB use (REV2n). The exception was Los Angeles,
where the differences in roundtrip efficiency between the two 20
kWh batteries increased the grid electricity consumption with
SLBs. The lower GWP reduction when adding EV charging (REV)
in all scenarios can be explained by the 5 kW capacity limit
imposed on the rooftop PV size, which was a reasonable practical
constraint. Larger PV capacity would be necessary to replace grid
electricity purchases. The GWP also reduced significantly with
SLB (R2/REV2) compared to the grid only (R0/REV0) or rooftop
PV scenarios (R1/REV1) in all locations for both residential applica-
tion cases. The detailed results for the residential applications are
provided in Section S5.
Fig. 4 (f) shows the economic payback times of the various sce-
narios considered for residential application for SLBs. The eco-
nomic payback time for rooftop PV was reduced with the
addition of SLBs in all locations. The difference in payback time
for the five locations depends not only on the PV generation but
also the electricity pricing and electricity demand (Young et al.,
2018). For SLB use in both residential applications, the lowest pay-
back time was in Los Angeles and the highest was in Portland. Even
though Portland had the highest payback time for rooftop PV, add-
ing SLBs reduced it by 37–39% for both residential application
cases, which indicates potential economic benefits when rooftop
solar is combined with SLBs in Portland.
3.2. Utility-level PV firming application
PV firming with energy storage is used to reduce fluctuations in
PV generation. Implementation of PV firming with both SLBs and
new LIBs increased the annual electricity production in all five
locations (Section S5). Production in Phoenix increased the most
(~18%), whereas it only increased by 8% in Los Angeles
(Table S5). Fig. 5 (a) shows the LCOE and life-cycle GWP for
utility-level PV firming applications for all scenarios considered
in each location. The results indicate that the LCOE and GWP
increased, even though the electricity generation increased with
firmed PV output when batteries were used. The LCOE of the base-
line was comparable with the results of a previous study on PV
firming (Perez et al., 2019).
The LCOE and GWP values were lower with SLBs compared to
new LIBs in the majority of the locations. The maximum LCOE
reduction by adding SLBs compared to new batteries was in Phoe-
nix (46%), with no change in Detroit. The LCOE change depended
on the minute-by-minute fluctuation of solar insolation for each
location—higher change with higher fluctuation like in New York
City and Portland. Using SLBs instead of new batteries reduced
the GWP the most in Portland (39%) and the least in Detroit
(0.4%). This difference is due to the required battery capacity for
PV firming, the changes in grid electricity needed, and the grid car-
bon intensity at each location. The detailed results of the utility-
level PV firming are provided in Section S5.

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
8 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx

3.3. Utility-level peak shaving application
The 2017 demand profiles for Michigan and Oregon used to
model the peak shaving application are provided in SM Section S2.
Fig. 5 (b) shows the LCOE and life-cycle GWP for all scenarios of
peak shaving considered for both Michigan and Oregon. Due to
the differences in the peak demand power and time, the cost varies
substantially between the two states. The LCOE obtained for the
baseline and energy storage scenarios were lower than those
reported for a study based in California (Lin and Damato, 2011).
The California-based study considered lead-acid battery storage
with lower efficiency, and the load profile in California was also
not explicitly modeled, which can explain the differences. For the
PS0 scenario with a natural gas peaking plant, the LCOE in Oregon
was lower than in Michigan. SLBs providing peaking power (PS1)
reduced the LCOE by 39% in Michigan but increased it by 61% in
Oregon. New LIBs (PS1n) did not lower the LCOE in both states
compared to a natural gas peaking plant. The consumption profile
was found to be an important factor in considering the potential
economic benefit from SLB use for peak shaving.
The GWP of SLB use for peak shaving depended on the baseload
used to charge the energy storage. In Michigan, there was an
increase in GWP with SLBs and new LIBs for peaking power com-
pared with natural gas for two reasons: (1) an increased electricity
consumption due to roundtrip efficiency losses, and (2) the use of
baseload generation in Michigan instead of natural gas generation.
Similarly, in Oregon, new LIBs increased the GWP in comparison
with natural gas. However, SLBs reduced it by 27% compared to
natural gas. This reduction by SLBs was because Oregon’s baseload
generation is less carbon-intensive than the generation from natu-
ral gas. The detailed results of the utility-level peak shaving are
provided in Section S5.
3.4. Comparison between all applications
Fig. 6 (a) and (b) compare the LCOE and life-cycle GWP of con-
ventional, SLB, and new LIB scenarios for various applications at
residential and utility levels, with no rebate. Using EV SLBs instead
of new batteries has the potential to reduce the levelized costs and
global warming potential for all applications. The maximum reduc-
tion was obtained for utility-level applications.
Comparing SLBs with the application baseline gave insight into
prioritizing SLB applications. SLBs provided benefits at the residen-
tial level when compared to rooftop PV alone by reducing the leve-
lized cost by 15–25% and carbon emission by 22–51%, making SLBs
attractive to residential consumers as well. In comparison, SLBs did
not reduce cost and carbon emissions for the utility-level applica-
tions in all scenarios. While PV firming with SLBs increased the
LCOE and GWP compared to unfirmed PV, the LCOE and GWP
reduction for SLB-based peak shaving compared to natural gas
plants depended on electricity consumption profile and generation
sources.
We were also able to identify important implications that can
affect the cost and carbon emissions for each application. In the
case of residential applications, electricity pricing was the key to
LCOE and GWP reduction. The levelized cost of electricity for roof-
top solar PV with SLBs was always lower than that for rooftop solar
PV only, irrespective of whether the residential tax credits were
applied or not (Tables S3–4). Adding SLB storage to rooftop solar
PV can provide financial benefits that may otherwise be lost as res-
idential tax credits for PV panels get scaled down to 0% by 2022 (U.
S. Internal Revenue Service, 2018).
For utility-level PV firming, curtailment (limiting the PV power
output) has been touted as an economical method to obtain low-
cost firmed output (Perez et al., 2019). However, PV generation
coincides with high peak times when the cost of generation is high,
making the curtailed electricity valuable. PV firming using energy
storage can also increase the reliability and stability of PV genera-
tion (Center for Sustainable Energy, 2015). For grid-connected PV,
including the avoided cost of electricity production and the cost
of reliability services can increase the value of curtailed electricity
and make energy storage and SLBs economically beneficial.
The analysis of utility-level peak shaving revealed that the car-
bon emission reduction depended on the baseload generation
sources. At present, the carbon intensity of electricity generation
sources in many locations is higher than that of a natural gas
power plant. Therefore, global warming potential can increase
when SLBs are used with the current electricity grid (as seen in
Michigan). However, as more renewable energy sources are added
at the utility-level (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2019b), SLBs will eventually deliver lower overall GWP opportuni-
ties than natural gas peaking plants (as already seen in Oregon).
Identifying potential applications for SLBs is only the first step
in the successful deployment of SLBs. To understand if the demand
for the potential applications can be met by the available SLBs, we
considered a scenario where 50% of the total available SLBs passed

Fig. 6. Average (a) levelized cost of electricity with no rebate applied and (b) global warming potential for baseline, new LIB scenario, and SLB scenario for various
applications at residential (without and with EV charging) and utility (PV firming and peak shaving) levels.

Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
quality checks and were used to meet the US energy storage
demand. The US alone is expected to reach an annual EOL battery
flow of 300–400 thousand battery packs in the next few years (Ai
et al., 2019). Considering an average capacity of 20 kWh, end-of-
life batteries could represent 6,000–8,000 MWh per year. Based
on the previous assumption, this battery volume translates to an
annual SLB availability of 3,000–4,000 MWh. At the same time,
the energy storage demand in the US is expected to be more than
4,500 MW by 2024 (Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, 2019).
The energy storage capacity addition in 2024 is projected to be
close to 5,000 MWh for residential and 10,400 MWh for utility-
level front-of-the-meter sectors (assuming 4-hour energy storage).
Using SLBs instead of new LIBs can potentially meet 19–26% of the
residential and utility-level energy storage needs in 2024, reducing
the average costs by 11–15% and average carbon footprints by 7–
9%. Repurposing electric vehicle batteries for energy storage is,
therefore, a promising end-of-life management option that can
provide grid-level services and support to distributed solar.
4. Conclusions
SLBs have the potential to lower the cost and carbon footprint
for residential and utility-level applications. Compared to new LIBs,
SLBs lowered the levelized cost of electricity and global warming
potential in all applications and locations considered. However,
residential and utility-level storage applications will require SLBs
in large volumes and capacities. The uncertainty in SLB quality
and availability may prove to be a limitation.
As lithium-ion battery chemistries change over time, the corre-
sponding battery degradation and second-life performance can
change (Bobba et al., 2018; Casals et al., 2017; Richa et al.,
2017b). To ensure safety, economic viability, and avoid premature
failure, SLBs need thorough testing and characterization of second-
life performance and lifetime (Cready et al., 2003), which has
resulted in testing protocols (Li et al., 2017) and an Underwriters
Laboratory standard UL1974 (‘‘ANSI/CAN/UL 1974: Standard for
Evaluation for Repurposing Batteries,” 2018). Moderate cycling
and appropriate choice of second-life applications can also ensure
that SLBs do not undergo increased degradation.
With changes in battery chemistry, the future EOL battery
stream is expected to have multiple battery chemistries, which
can also impact the recycling process. Suitable efforts, such as
labeling and pre-sorting, can improve the purity of the recycling
output stream even for multiple battery chemistries (Wang et al.,
2016). Solutions applicable for EOL vehicles can also be applied
to EOL management of SLBs, such as worldwide regulations on
reverse logistics and the use of renewable energy for various pro-
cesses (D’Adamo et al., 2020). Technologies, such as internet-of-
things, can be adopted to obtain relevant battery information,
e.g. the disassembly method, which can streamline the recycling
process as well as the repurposing process (Garrido-Hidalgo
et al., 2020). Repurposing may divert the flow of end-of-life batter-
ies away from recycling. On the other hand, using SLBs in applica-
tions, which will otherwise use new LIBs, may also help reduce
new mining. Further research is needed to evaluate the
repurpose-recycle relationship.
Stakeholders, such as the automotive industry and battery man-
ufacturers, are already involved in SLB demonstration projects
(Canals Casals et al., 2019; Martinez-Laserna et al., 2018; Stringer
and Ma, 2018), showing interest in repurposing from different sec-
tors. However, the SLB market is still in a nascent stage. The suc-
cessful deployment of SLBs for various applications presented
here and in the broader literature depends on market variables,
such as end-of-life battery availability, testing capability, repur-
posing capability, quality assurance, transportation, and other sup-
Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
9
ply chain logistics (Canals Casals and Amante García, 2014; Jiao
and Evans, 2016). Analysis of end-of-life battery availability
(Nassar et al., 2019; Richa et al., 2014) and the effect of market
variables on the SLB supply chain (Alamerew and Brissaud, 2020)
can provide us with important lessons to ensure reliable SLB avail-
ability. Strategies for successful repurposing have also been identi-
fied, such as design for disassembly, policy support, and
standardization of product and component designs (Alamerew
and Brissaud, 2020). Consumer perception of SLBs is another
important factor for large-scale adoption, which needs to be
addressed in future research (Brauer et al., 2016).
Extending the life of end-of-life electric vehicle batteries
through the repurposing process provides an opportunity to utilize
a product for energy storage applications that would otherwise be
considered waste. We anticipate the results presented in this paper
will help the strategic prioritization of SLB use. Coupling these
results with market variables, end-of-life battery availability, and
consumer perception will also allow for further research that can
ensure the successful deployment of SLBs.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The work has been financially supported by Ford Motor
Company.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034.
References
Ahmadi, L., Yip, A., Fowler, M., Young, S.B., Fraser, R.A., 2014. Environmental
feasibility of re-use of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain. Energy Technol.
Assessments 6, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.01.006.
Ahmadi, L., Young, S.B., Fowler, M., Fraser, R.A., Achachlouei, M.A., 2017. A cascaded
life cycle: reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage
systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-
015-0959-7.
Ai, N., Zheng, J., Chen, W.Q., 2019. U.S. end-of-life electric vehicle batteries: Dynamic
inventory modeling and spatial analysis for regional solutions. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.01.021.
Alamerew, Y.A., Brissaud, D., 2020. Modelling reverse supply chain through system
dynamics for realizing the transition towards the circular economy: A case
study on electric vehicle batteries. J. Clean. Prod. 254,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120025 120025.
ANSI/CAN/UL 1974: Standard for Evaluation for Repurposing Batteries, 2018. 3–4.
Arizona Public Service Electric Company, 2017. Rate schedule R-3: Residential
service saver choice max.
Assunção, A., Moura, P.S., de Almeida, A.T., 2016. Technical and economic
assessment of the secondary use of repurposed electric vehicle batteries in
the residential sector to support solar energy. Appl. Energy 181, 120–131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.08.056.
Atif, A., Khalid, M., 2020. Saviztky-golay filtering for solar power smoothing and
ramp rate reduction based on controlled battery energy storage. IEEE Access 8,
33806–33817. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2973036.
Bai, B., Xiong, S., Song, B., Xiaoming, M., 2019. Economic analysis of distributed solar
photovoltaics with reused electric vehicle batteries as energy storage systems
in China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 109, 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.03.048.
Bare, J., 2011. TRACI 2.0: The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and
other environmental impacts 2.0. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9.
Bhatnagar, D., Currier, A., Hernandez, J., Ma, O., Kirby, B., 2013. Market and policy
barriers to energy storage deployment. Sandia Natl. Lab. 58.
Bobba, S., Podias, A., Di Persio, F., Messagie, M., Tecchio, P., Cusenza, M.A., Eynard, U.,
Mathieux, F., Pfrang, A., 2018. Sustainability Assessment of Second Life
Application of Automotive Batteries (SASLAB): JRC Exploratory Research
10 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
(2016-2017): Final technical report: August 2018; EUR 29321 EN, Publications
Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-928. Doi:
10.2760/53624.
Brauer, S., Monhof, M., Klor, B., Plenter, F., Beverungen, D., Siemen, C., 2016.
Residential energy storage from repurposed electric vehicle batteries: market
overview and development of a service-centered business model. In: 2016 IEEE
18th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI). IEEE, pp. 143–152. Doi: 10.1109/
CBI.2016.24.
Canals Casals, L., Amante García, B., 2014. A review of the complexities of applying
second life electric car batteries on energy businesses. Energy Systems
Conference. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2571.1362.
Canals Casals, L., Barbero, M., Corchero, C., 2019. Reused second life batteries for
aggregated demand response services. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 99–108. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.005.
Cardo-Miota, J., Beltran, H., Ayuso, P., Segarra-Tamarit, J., Perez, E., 2019. Optimized
battery sizing for merchant solar PV capacity firming in different electricity
markets. In: IECON 2019 - 45th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society. IEEE, pp. 2446–2451. Doi: 10.1109/IECON.2019.8927434.
Casals, L.C., García, B.A., Aguesse, F., Iturrondobeitia, A., 2017. Second life of electric
vehicle batteries: relation between materials degradation and environmental
impact. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-
0918-3.
Center for Sustainable Energy, 2015. Short-Term Duty Cycle Test Report.
Chediak, M., 2017. The latest bull case for electric cars: the cheapest batteries ever
[WWW Document]. Bloom. Technol. URL https://www.bloomberg.com/news/
articles/2017-12-05/latest-bull-case-for-electric-cars-the-cheapest-batteries-
ever (accessed 11.22.18).
Choi, Y., Rhee, S.-W., 2020. Current status and perspectives on recycling of end-of-
life battery of electric vehicle in Korea (Republic of). Waste Manag. 106, 261–
270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.03.015.
Christensen, C., Anderson, R., Horowitz, S., Courtney, A., Spencer, J., 2006. BEopt
software for building energy optimization: features and capabilities. Build. Am.
U.S. Deparment Energy 21. https://doi.org/10.2172/891598.
Cicconi, P., Landi, D., Morbidoni, A., Germani, M., 2012. Feasibility analysis of second
life applications for Li-Ion cells used in electric powertrain using environmental
indicators. In: 2012 IEEE International Energy Conference and Exhibition
(ENERGYCON). IEEE, pp. 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1109/
EnergyCon.2012.6348293.
Consolidated Edison Company of New York Inc., 2012. Schedule for electricity
service. PSC No 10- Electr.
Cready, E., Lippert, J., Pihl, J., Weinstock, I., Symons, P., 2003. Technical and
Economic Feasibility of Applying Used EV Batteries in Stationary Applications.
Doi: SAND2002-4084.
Cusenza, M.A., Guarino, F., Longo, S., Mistretta, M., Cellura, M., 2019. Reuse of
electric vehicle batteries in buildings: An integrated load match analysis and life
cycle assessment approach. Energy Build. 186, 339–354. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.01.032.
D’Adamo, I., Gastaldi, M., Rosa, P., 2020. Recycling of end-of-life vehicles: Assessing
trends and performances in Europe. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 152,. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119887 119887.
D’Adamo, I., Rosa, P., 2019. A structured literature review on obsolete electric
vehicles management practices. Sustainability 11, 6876. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su11236876.
Denholm, P., Nunemaker, J., Gagnon, P., Cole, W., Denholm, P., Nunemaker, J.,
Gagnon, P., Cole, W., 2019. The Potential for Battery Energy Storage to Provide
Peaking Capacity in the United States.
Desarnaud, G., 2019. The second life battery cycle: after about 10 years in vehicle,
lithium-ion batteries can be reused for another purpose and thereby begin a
‘‘second life” [WWW Document]. Capgemini Inven. URL https://
www.capgemini.com/us-en/2019/04/second-life-batteries-a-sustainable-
business-opportunity-not-a-conundrum/ (accessed 2.23.20).
DTE Electric Company, 2014. Rate book for electric service. M.P.S.C. No. 1 - Electr.
DTE Energy Advanced Implementation of Energy Storage Technologies Final
Technology Performance Report . 2016. (Accessed 29 October 2019).
Debnath, U.K., Ahmad, I., Habibi, D., 2016. Gridable vehicles and second life
batteries for generation side asset management in the Smart Grid. Int. J. Electr.
Power Energy Syst. 82, 114–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2016.03.006.
Faria, R., Marques, P., Garcia, R., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., De Almeida, A.T.,
2014. Primary and secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a life cycle
perspective. J. Power Sources 262, 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2014.03.092.
Ferreira, S.R., Rose, D.M., Schoenwald, D.A., Bray, K., Conover, D., Kintner-meyer, M.,
Viswanathan, V., 2014. Protocol for Uniformly Measuring and Expressing the
Performance of Energy Storage Systems, Office of Electricity Delivery and
Energy Reliability (OE1).
Fu, R., Feldman, D., Margolis, R., Woodhouse, M., Ardani, K., 2017. U.S. Solar
Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark : Q1 2017. National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.
Garrido-Hidalgo, C., Ramirez, F.J., Olivares, T., Roda-Sanchez, L., 2020. The adoption
of internet of things in a circular supply chain framework for the recovery of
WEEE: The case of lithium-ion electric vehicle battery packs. Waste Manag. 103,
32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.09.045.
Gladwin, D.T., Gould, C.R., Stone, D.A., Foster, M.P., 2013. Viability of ‘‘second-life”
use of electric and hybridelectric vehicle battery packs. IECON Proc. (Industrial
Electron. Conf. 1922–1927. Doi: 10.1109/IECON.2013.6699425.
Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
He, L., Zhang, S., Chen, Y., Ren, L., Li, J., 2018. Techno-economic potential of a
renewable energy-based microgrid system for a sustainable large-scale
residential community in Beijing, China. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93, 631–
641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.053.
Heymans, C., Walker, S.B., Young, S.B., Fowler, M., 2014. Economic analysis of
second use electric vehicle batteries for residential energy storage and load-
levelling. Energy Policy 71, 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.016.
HOMER PRO Version 3.7 User Manual, 2016.
Hossain, E., Murtaugh, D., Mody, J., Faruque, H.M.R., Haque Sunny, M.S.,
Mohammad, N., 2019. A comprehensive review on second-life batteries:
current state, manufacturing considerations, applications, impacts, barriers &
potential solutions, business strategies, and policies. IEEE Access 7, 73215–
73252. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2917859.
Idaho National Laboratory, 2015. Plugged In: How Americans Charge Their Electric
Vehicles.
Jiao, N., Evans, S., 2016. Secondary use of electric vehicle batteries and potential
impacts on business models. J. Ind. Prod. Eng. 33, 348–354. https://doi.org/
10.1080/21681015.2016.1172125.
Johann, A., Madlener, R., 2014. Profitability of energy storage for raising self-
consumption of solar power: Analysis of different household types in Germany.
In: Energy Procedia. Elsevier B.V., pp. 2206–2210. Doi: 10.1016/
j.egypro.2014.12.110.
Kamath, D., Arsenault, R., Kim, H.C., Anctil, A., 2020. Economic and environmental
feasibility of second-life lithium-ion batteries as fast charging energy
storage. Environ. Sci. Technol. acs.est.9b05883. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.9b05883.
Kamath, D., Shukla, S., Anctil, A., 2019. An economic and environmental assessment
of residential rooftop photovoltaics with second life batteries in the US. In:
Conference Record of the IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference.
Karandeh, R., Prendergast, W., Cecchi, V., 2019. Optimal scheduling of battery
energy storage systems for solar power smoothing. In: 2019 SoutheastCon. IEEE,
pp. 1–6. Doi: 10.1109/SoutheastCon42311.2019.9020340.
Kim, H.C., Wallington, T.J., Arsenault, R., Bae, C., Ahn, S., Lee, J., 2016. Cradle-to-gate
emissions from a commercial electric vehicle li-ion battery: a comparative
analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 7715–7722. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.6b00830.
Li, J., Wang, Y., Tan, X., 2017. Research on the classification method for the
secondary uses of retired lithium-ion traction batteries. Energy Procedia 105,
2843–2849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.625.
Lin, J., Damato, G., 2011. Energy storage — a cheaper and cleaner alternative to
natural gas-fired peaker plants energy storage. Berkeley, CA.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, 2017. Rate ordinance [WWW
Document]. URL http://ezweb.ladwp.com/UserFiles/Rate Summaries/Electric
Rates Summary (effective July 1, 2017).pdf (accessed 10.29.17).
LTS, 2016. DATASMART LCI Package (US-EI SimaProÒ Library) [WWW Document].
URL https://ltsexperts.com/services/software/datasmart-life-cycle-inventory/
(accessed 11.22.18).
Lutsey, N., Nicholas, M., 2019. Update on electric vehicle costs in the United States
through 2030.
Madlener, R., Kirmas, A., 2017. Economic viability of second use electric vehicle
batteries for energy storage in residential applications. Energy Procedia., 3806–
3815 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.890.
Martinez-Laserna, E., Gandiaga, I., Sarasketa-Zabala, E., Badeda, J., Stroe, D.-I.,
Swierczynski, M., Goikoetxea, A., 2018. Battery second life: Hype, hope or
reality? A critical review of the state of the art. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 93,
701–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.035.
Mayyas, A., Steward, D., Mann, M., 2019. The case for recycling: Overview and
challenges in the material supply chain for automotive li-ion batteries. Sustain.
Mater. Technol. 19,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00087 e00087.
Mirzaei Omrani, M., Jannesari, H., 2019. Economic and environmental assessment of
reusing electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries for load leveling in the residential,
industrial and photovoltaic power plants sectors. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
116,. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109413 109413.
Nassar, E., Tokimatsu, K., Aziz, M., 2019. Potential distributions of electric vehicle
secondary used batteries for frequency regulation in Europe. Energy Procedia.
Elsevier B.V, 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2018.12.070.
Neubauer, J., Pesaran, A., 2011. The ability of battery second use strategies to impact
plug-in electric vehicle prices and serve utility energy storage applications. J.
Power Sources 196, 10351–10358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2011.06.053.
Neubauer, J.S., Pesaran, A., Williams, B., Ferry, M., Eyer, J., 2012. A techno-economic
analysis of PEV battery second use: repurposed-battery selling price and
commercial and industrial end-user value. In: SAE Technical Papers. Doi:
10.4271/2012-01-0349.
Patel, S., Ahmed, M., Kamalasadan, S., 2020. A novel energy storage-based net-load
smoothing and shifting architecture for high amount of photovoltaics
integrated power distribution system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 56, 3090–3099.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIA.2020.2970380.
Perez, M., Perez, R., Rábago, K.R., Putnam, M., 2019. Overbuilding & curtailment: The
cost-effective enablers of firm PV generation. Sol. Energy 180, 412–422. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2018.12.074.
Portland General Electric Company, 2017. Schedule 7: Residential service. P.U.C.
Oregon No. E-18.
PRé Sustainability, 2018. About SimaPro [WWW Document]. https://simapro.com/
about/.
 D. Kamath et al. / Waste Management xxx (xxxx) xxx
Qiao, Q., Zhao, F., Liu, Z., Hao, H., 2019. Electric vehicle recycling in China: Economic
and environmental benefits. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 140, 45–53. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.09.003.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., 2017a. Eco-efficiency analysis of a lithium-ion
battery waste hierarchy inspired by circular economy. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 715–730.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12607.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Gaustad, G., Wang, X., 2014. A future perspective on lithium-
ion battery waste flows from electric vehicles. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 83, 63–
76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.008.
Richa, K., Babbitt, C.W., Nenadic, N.G., Gaustad, G., 2017b. Environmental trade-offs
across cascading lithium-ion battery life cycles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 66–
81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0942-3.
Saez-de-Ibarra, A., Martinez-Laserna, E., Stroe, D.-I., Swierczynski, M., Rodriguez, P.,
2016. Sizing study of second life li-ion batteries for enhancing renewable
energy grid integration. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 52, 4999–5008. https://doi.org/
10.1109/TIA.2016.2593425.
Sathre, R., Scown, C.D., Kavvada, O., Hendrickson, T.P., 2015. Energy and climate
effects of second-life use of electric vehicle batteries in California through 2050.
J. Power Sources 288, 82–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.04.097.
Schoenwald, D., Ellison, J., 2016. Determination of Duty Cycle for Energy Storage
Systems in a PV Smoothing Application.
Sengupta, M., Xie, Y., Lopez, A., Habte, A., Maclaurin, G., Shelby, J., 2018. The national
solar radiation data base (NSRDB). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 89, 51–60.
Shukla, S., Kamath, D., Arsenault, R., Kim, H.C., Anctil, A., n.d. Economic and
Environmental Benefit of Photovoltaics and Second Life Batteries for US
Residential Microgrids. Prog.
Stackhouse, P.W., 2011. Surface meteorology and solar energy [WWW Document].
URL https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/.
Stringer, D., Ma, J., 2018. Where 3 million electric vehicle batteries will go when
they retire [WWW Document]. Bloom. Businessweek. URL https://www.
bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-27/where-3-million-electric-vehicle-
batteries-will-go-when-they-retire (accessed 10.22.18).
Sun, S.I., Chipperfield, A.J., Kiaee, M., Wills, R.G.A., 2018. Effects of market dynamics
on the time-evolving price of second-life electric vehicle batteries. J. Energy
Storage 19, 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2018.06.012.
Tervo, E., Agbim, K., DeAngelis, F., Hernandez, J., Kim, H.K., Odukomaiya, A., 2018. An
economic analysis of residential photovoltaic systems with lithium ion battery
storage in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 1057–1066.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.055.
Tong, S., Fung, T., Klein, M.P., Weisbach, D.A., Park, J.W., 2017. Demonstration of
reusing electric vehicle battery for solar energy storage and demand side
management. J. Energy Storage 11, 200–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
est.2017.03.003.
Please cite this article as: D. Kamath, S. Shukla, R. Arsenault et al., Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in res-
idential and utility-level applications, Waste Management, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034
11
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019a. EIA-930 U.S. Electric System
Operating Data.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019b. Annual Energy Outlook 2019: With
projections to 2050. U.S. Energy Information Administration, Washington, D. C.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018a. Electricity: End-Use Prices:
Residential. Annu. Energy Outlook 2018 With Proj. to 2050.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018b. Electric Power Projections by
Electricity Market Module Region. Annu. Energy Outlook 2018 With Proj. to
2050.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2017. Electric Power Monthly with data for
November 2017.
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2016. Capital Cost Estimates for Utility
Scale Electricity Generating Plants. Doi: 10.2172/784669
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2018. Year 2016 Summary Tables eGRID.
U.S. Internal Revenue Service, 2018. Residential Renewable Energy Tax Credit
[WWW Document]. URL http://programs.dsireusa.org/system/program/detail/
1235 (accessed 12.26.18).
U.S Environmental Protection Agency, 2019. Electric Power Monthly with data for
August 2019.
Uddin, K., Gough, R., Radcliffe, J., Marco, J., Jennings, P., 2017. Techno-economic
analysis of the viability of residential photovoltaic systems using lithium-ion
batteries for energy storage in the United Kingdom. Appl. Energy 206, 12–21.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.170.
Wang, X., Gaustad, G., Babbitt, C.W., 2016. Targeting high value metals in lithium-
ion battery recycling via shredding and size-based separation. Waste Manag.
51, 204–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.026.
Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016.
The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
Wilcox, S., Marion, W., 2008. Users manual for TMY3 data sets. Renew. Energy. Doi:
NREL/TP-581-43156.
Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, 2019. Wood Mackenzie Power &
Renewables forecasts.
Wuschke, L., Jäckel, H.-G., Leißner, T., Peuker, U.A., 2019. Crushing of large Li-ion
battery cells. Waste Manag. 85, 317–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.12.042.
Xiong, S., Ji, J., Ma, X., 2020. Environmental and economic evaluation of
remanufacturing lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Waste Manag.
102, 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.11.013.
Young, S., Macgill, I., Bruce, A., 2018. Impacts of PV System Configuration , Retail
Tariffs and Annual Household Consumption on Payback Times for Residential
Battery Energy Storage, in: Asia Pacific Solar Research Conference. Sydney,
Australia.