CORRIGENDUM • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Reply to Comment on ‘Egypt’s water

Corrigendum: The role of pickup truck budget deficit and suggested mitigation
policies for the Grand Ethiopian
electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty Renaissance Dam filling scenarios’
Essam Heggy, Zane Sharkawy and
Abotalib Z Abotalib
vehicles (2022 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 034031)
- Green Sahara tipping points in transient
climate model simulations of the Holocene
To cite this article: Maxwell Woody et al 2022 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 089501 Peter O Hopcroft and Paul J Valdes

- Comment on ‘Egypt’s water budget deficit

and suggested mitigation policies for the
Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam filling
scenarios’
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Ahmed Eladawy, Tirusew Asefa and Saker
El Nour

This content was downloaded from IP address 157.37.183.239 on 11/12/2022 at 18:26

 Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 089501 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac7cfc

CORRIGENDUM

Corrigendum: The role of pickup truck electrification in the

OPEN ACCESS
decarbonization of light-duty vehicles (2022 Environ. Res. Lett.
RECEIVED
16 June 2022 17 034031)
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
29 June 2022 Maxwell Woody1,∗, Parth Vaishnav1, Gregory A Keoleian1,∗, Robert De Kleine2, Hyung Chul Kim2,
PUBLISHED James E Anderson2 and Timothy J Wallington2
15 July 2022
1
Center for Sustainable Systems, School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor,
MI 48019, United States of America
Original content from 2
this work may be used Research and Innovation Center, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48121, United States of America
∗
under the terms of the Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 licence. E-mail: gregak@umich.edu
Any further distribution Supplementary material for this article is available online
of this work must
maintain attribution to
the author(s) and the title
of the work, journal
citation and DOI.
We discovered an equation error in our recently 1.4–1.5 years for sedans, 1.6–1.9 years for SUVs,
published paper ‘The role of pickup trucks in the and 1.6 years for pickup trucks (figure 2(a)), based
electrification of light-duty vehicles’ [1]. This error on the average annual VMT for each vehicle class.
occurred in the methods section describing the calcu- For BEVs and HEVs the breakeven time is 2.8–
lation of the use phase emissions of electric vehicles. 3.1 years for sedans, 3.3–3.7 years for SUVs, and
The charging efficiency of the vehicle’s battery was not 3.4 years for pickup trucks (figure 2(b)). On a per-
properly incorporated into the equation, impacting mile basis, electrifying an ICEV pickup to a BEV
the results for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions pickup results in life cycle GHG emissions sav-
of battery electric vehicles (BEVs). While we have ings of 300–318 g CO2 e/mile, electrifying an ICEV
modeled charging efficiency correctly in our previous SUV results in savings of 236–276 g CO2 e/mile,
studies, this error was inadvertent and unfortunately and electrifying an ICEV sedan results in savings of
missed by all co-authors. Our results for internal 216–255 g CO2 e/mile.’
combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) and hybrid elec- Each section in the Sensitivity Analyses has also
tric vehicles (HEVs) were not affected. been updated. In the Vehicle Range section, sen-
As a result of this error, life cycle GHG emis- tences 1–3 now read, ‘The 200-mile range BEVs
sions of BEVs were underestimated by 17%–19% on have approximately 10% lower lifetime emissions
average. Effects on the sensitivity and regional ana- than the 300-mile range BEVs, a decrease of 16–
lyses are minor. This error did not impact any of the 24 g CO2 e/mile across the three vehicle classes. The
conclusions drawn from our results. We have correc- 400-mile range BEVs have 15%–16% higher life-
ted the numerical values shown in the updated res- time emissions than the 300-mile range BEVs, an
ults below, and reproduced figures 2–7 which have increase of 25–41 g CO2 e/mile. Approximately 56%–
changed slightly. A corrected supplementary inform- 69% of this effect is due to battery production…’
ation document is attached. In the Drive Cycle section, sentence 6 now reads,
The equation shown in the Methods—Use Phase ‘For BEVs, the differences in emissions between 100%
subsection should be: city and 100% highway driving (base and premium
model average) are 21 g CO2 e/mile for sedans, 36 g
∑
y+Lv
EFy CO2 e/mile for SUVs, and 48 g CO2 e/mile for pickup
GHGBEV = Mv,y × FEe × . trucks.’ In the BEV Lifetime section, sentences 1–
y = 2022
n
2 now read, ‘A 20% greater BEV lifetime results
in an 8%–9% decrease in per mile emissions (13–
The meaning and units of each variable are
21 g CO2 e/mile) due to a reduced contribution of
unchanged (FE[e is ]the fuel economy of an electric
Wh vehicle production emissions. Likewise, there is a
(BEV)[vehicle] mile , EFy is the emissions factor in
11%–12% increase in per-mile emissions (19–29 g
year y kgkWh
CO2 e
, and η is the charging efficiency). CO2 e/mile) when BEV lifetime is reduced by 20%.’ In
Sentences 6–8 in the Results section should the Future Vehicle Technology Development section,
read, ‘For BEVs and ICEVs the breakeven time is sentence 3 now reads, ‘BEV pickup emissions as a

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd

Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 089501 M Woody et al

Figure 2. Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions versus vehicle mileage for (a) internal combustion engine and battery electric
sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks, and (b) hybrid electric and battery electric sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks. The lower and
higher limits of each range are results for base and premium models, respectively.

Figure 3. Lifetime cradle-to-grave GHG emissions (base and premium models) for each combination of vehicle class and
powertrain in g CO2 e/mile and average GHG emissions as a percentage of ICEV pickup truck emissions.

2
Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 089501 M Woody et al

Figure 4. Lifetime emissions of each vehicle class and powertrain, (a) using 200-, 300-, and 400-mile ranges for the BEV options,
(b) with city (UDDS), combined (43/57 city/highway split) and highway (HWFET) adjusted drive cycles, (c) using a BEV lifetime
of 20% more and 20% less than the ICEV and HEV options, and (d) with current and future vehicles with different levels of
technology development. Filled and open symbols are base and premium models, respectively.

percentage of ICEV pickup emissions are 45% for
2020 vehicles, 38% for 2030 vehicles in the low tech-
nology development scenario, and 42% for 2030
vehicles in the high technology development scenario
(figure 4(d)).’
In the Regional Variation section, paragraph 1,
sentences 1–2 should read, ‘… for our base model
vehicles (units of g CO2 e/mile): ICEV sedan, 344–
450; HEV sedan, 223–378; BEV sedan, 57–466; ICEV
SUV, 416–513; HEV SUV, 271–465; BEV SUV, 65–
610; ICEV pickup truck, 519–649; HEV pickup truck,
330–581; and BEV pickup truck, 79–740 (figure 5).
BEV emissions range from 13% to 138% of ICEV
emissions and from 14% to 155% of HEV emis-
sions across all U.S. counties.’ The eighth sentence
of the Abstract changes accordingly. Sentence 4 now
reads, ‘Using a population-weighted average across all
U.S. counties, BEV emissions are approximately 43%
of ICEV emissions and approximately 60% of HEV
emissions…’ The fourth sentence of the Abstract
changes accordingly. Paragraph 2 has been updated
to read, ‘For sedans, the BEV is the least emitting
option in 2905 counties and the HEV is the least emit-
ting option in 203 counties (out of 3108 counties in
the contiguous United States). For SUVs, the BEV
and HEV are the least emitting options in 2829 and
279 counties, respectively. For pickups, the BEV and
HEV are the least emitting options in 2881 and 227
counties, respectively. The ICEV is the least emitting
option in zero counties. The rare situation in which
the ICEV emits less than the BEV occurs in only 78,
146, and 120 counties for the sedan, SUV, and pickup,
respectively.’ And paragraph 3, sentences 2–3 now
read, ‘Using a population-weighted average across all
counties, switching from an ICEV to a BEV saves
234, 253, and 331 g CO2 e/mile for sedans, SUVs, and
pickup trucks respectively. Switching from an HEV to
a BEV saves 108, 126, and 158 g CO2 e/mile for sedans,
SUVs, and pickup trucks respectively.’
In the Time of Charging section, paragraph 1, sen-
tences 2–3 should read, ‘…charging at specific times
can lead to an 87% decrease to a 78% increase in
emissions for individual counties. As a population-
weighted average, midday charging results in an 9%
decrease, evening charging results in a 3% increase,
and overnight charging results in a 1% increase in
emissions.’ And sentence 7 now reads, ‘If this is done
for each county, there is a population weighted aver-
age decrease of 12%.’
In the Grid Decarbonization section, paragraph
2, sentence 1 should be, ‘Using U.S. average emis-
sions, a 95% reduction in grid emissions intensity by
2050 results in a 4% decrease in emissions for BEV
sedans (6 g CO2 e/mile), a 4% decrease in emissions
for SUVs (9 g CO2 e/mile), and a 4% decrease in emis-
sions for pickup trucks (11 g CO2 e/mile) compared

3
Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 089501 M Woody et al

Figure 5. Life cycle GHG emissions for each vehicle class and powertrain, accounting for differences in grid emissions for
electricity balancing areas and county-level differences in drive cycle and temperature effect on fuel economy.

Figure 6. (a) National average emissions factor for each grid decarbonization scenario. (b) Lifetime emissions of each vehicle class
and powertrain with each decarbonization scenario. Filled and open symbols are base and premium models, respectively.

to the baseline scenario (figure 6(b)). Paragraph 3,
sentences 1–3 should read, ‘In the 95% decarbon-
ization by 2035 scenario, BEV sedan emissions are
reduced by 19% (30–31 g CO2 e), SUV emissions are
reduced by 21% (42–44 g CO2 e), and pickup emis-
sions are reduced by 21% (51–53 g CO2 e) compared
to the base scenario. At a county level, BEV pickup
truck emissions range from a 0% change to a 45%
decrease from the base scenario. In this case, aver-
age BEV pickup GHG emissions are reduced to 34%,
rather than 42% as in the base case, of their ICEV
counterparts.’ And paragraph 4, sentence 2 now reads,
‘Using a population-weighted county average, optim-
ized charging lowers BEV pickup emissions by 27 g
CO2 e/mile (11% decrease), using the 95% decarbon-
ized by 2035 grid lowers BEV pickup emissions by 50 g
CO2 e/mile (20% decrease), and applying time-of-day
optimization with that decarbonized grid leads to a
savings of 69 g CO2 e/mile (28% decrease).’
In the Discussion section, paragraph 1, sentence
2 now reads, ‘…emissions of base model HEV and
BEV sedans are 70% and 42% respectively of their

4
Environ. Res. Lett. 17 (2022) 089501 M Woody et al

Figure 7. GHG emissions of a BEV pickup truck for base case grid emissions projections, a rapid decarbonization scenario, charge
time-of-day optimization, and charge time-of-day optimization combined with rapid grid decarbonization.

ICEV counterpart; emissions of base model SUVs are ORCID iDs

73% and 46% respectively of their ICEV counterpart,
and emissions of base model HEV and BEV pickups
are 72% and 45% of their ICEV counterpart.’ Para-
graph 1, sentence 4 now reads, ‘Over the lifetimes of
the base models, BEV sedans, SUVs, and pickups emit
approximately 40, 48, and 62 tonnes less CO2 e than
their ICEV counterparts.’ The fifth sentence of the
Abstract changes accordingly. Paragraph 3, sentences
1–2 now read, ‘Choosing the best charging strategy
(midday, evening, or overnight) can reduce BEV life-
time emissions by 12% on average. For sedans this
reduces emissions by 19–20 g CO2 e per mile, but for
pickups emissions are reduced by 29–31 g CO2 e per
mile.’ And paragraph 5, sentence 1 now reads, ‘Pub-
lic concerns about BEVs having higher emissions than
ICEVs or HEVs are largely unfounded, as BEVs out-
perform HEVs in 91%–94% of counties, and BEVs
outperform ICEVs in 95%–98% of counties, even
assuming modest progress towards grid decarboniz-
ation…’ The ninth sentence of the Abstract changes
accordingly.
Maxwell Woody  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6610-2777
Parth Vaishnav  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1582-
4523
Gregory A Keoleian  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
7096-1304
Robert De Kleine  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
6510-9336
Hyung Chul Kim  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
0992-4547
James E Anderson  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
0878-5271
Timothy J Wallington  https://orcid.org/0000-
0002-9810-6326
Reference
[1] Woody M, Vaishnav P, Keoleian G A, De Kleine R, Kim H C,
Anderson J E, Wallington T J 2022 The role of pickup truck
electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles
Environ. Res. Lett. 17 034031