No abstract

This is the autho s e sio of a o k that was published in the following source: Hardman, S.; Jenn, A.; Beard, G.; Daina, N.;Figenbaum, E.; Jochem, P. E. P.; Kinnear, N. A. D.; Pontes, J. P.;Refa, N.;Turrentine, T. S.; Witkamp, B. (2018). AbstractThis paper presents a literature review of studies that investigate infrastructure needs to support the market introduction of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). It focuses on literature relating to consumer preferences for charging infrastructure, and how consumers interact with and use this infrastructure. This includes studies that use questionnaire surveys, interviews, modelling, GPS data from vehicles, and data from electric vehicle charging equipment. These studies indicate that the most important location for PEV charging is at home, followed by work, and then public locations. Studies have found that more effort is needed to ensure consumers have easy access to PEV charging and that charging at home, work, or public locations should not be free of cost. Research indicates that PEV charging will not impact electricity grids on the short term, however charging may need to be managed when the vehicles are deployed in greater numbers. In some areas of study the literature is not sufficiently mature to draw any conclusions from. More research is especially needed to determine how much infrastructure is needed to support the roll out of PEVs. This paper ends with policy implications and suggests avenues of future research.Next, we provide background information on charging modes and levels and then introduce the approach to the literature review. Section 2 then summarises the literature, whilst Section 3 concludes with insights for policymakers and literature gaps.

No abstract

The consumer response to changing gasoline prices has long interested economists and policymakers, for it has important implications for the effects of gasoline taxation and vehicle energy efficiency policies. This study examines both the elasticity of driving with respect to changing gasoline prices and heterogeneity in this elasticity by geography, the fuel economy of the vehicle, and the age of the vehicle. We use detailed annual vehiclelevel emissions inspection test data from Pennsylvania that include odometer readings, inspection zip codes, and extensive vehicle characteristics. We estimate a short-run gasoline price elasticity of driving demand of-0.10, and find substantial heterogeneity in this responsiveness. The elasticity is largely driven by low fuel economy vehicles, as well as vehicles between 3 and 7 years old. Our findings help reconcile some of the recent literature and provide guidance on the magnitude of the direct rebound effect from light duty vehicle energy efficiency policies. JEL classification codes: H23, Q38, Q41.

No abstract

Electric vehicles (EVs) are experiencing a rise in popularity over the past few years as the technology has matured and costs have declined, and support for clean transportation has promoted awareness, increased charging opportunities, and facilitated EV adoption. Suitably, a vast body of literature has been produced exploring various facets of EVs and their role in transportation and energy systems. This paper provides a timely and comprehensive review of scientific studies looking at various aspects of EVs, including: (a) an overview of the status of the light-duty-EV market and current projections for future adoption; (b) insights on market opportunities beyond light-duty EVs; (c) a review of cost and performance evolution for batteries, power electronics, and electric machines that are key components of EV success; (d) charging-infrastructure status with a focus on modeling and studies that are used to project charging-infrastructure requirements and the economics of public charging; (e) an overview of the impact of EV charging on power systems at multiple scales, ranging from bulk power systems to distribution networks; (f) insights into life-cycle cost and emissions studies focusing on EVs; and (g) future expectations and synergies between EVs and other emerging trends and technologies. The goal of this paper is to provide readers with a snapshot of the current state of the art and help navigate this vast literature by comparing studies critically and comprehensively and synthesizing general insights. This detailed review paints a positive picture for the future of EVs for on-road transportation, and the authors remain hopeful that remaining technology, regulatory, societal, behavioral, and business-model barriers can be addressed over time to support a transition toward cleaner, more efficient, and affordable transportation solutions for all.

The United States Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission standards are designed to reduce petroleum consumption and GHG emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles. They do so by requiring automakers to meet aggregate criteria for fleet fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates. Several incentives for manufacturers to sell alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) have been introduced in recent updates of CAFE/GHG policy for vehicles sold from 2012 through 2025 to help encourage a fleet technology transition. These incentives allow automakers that sell AFVs to meet less-stringent fleet efficiency targets, resulting in increased fleet-wide gasoline consumption and emissions. We derive a closed-form expression to quantify these effects. We find that each time an AFV is sold in place of a conventional vehicle, fleet emissions increase by 0 to 60 t of CO2 and gasoline consumption increases by 0 to 7000 gallons (26,000 L), depending on the AFV and year of sale. Using projections for vehicles sold from 2012 to 2025 from the Energy Information Administration, we estimate that the CAFE/GHG AFV incentives lead to a cumulative increase of 30 to 70 million metric tons of CO2 and 3 to 8 billion gallons (11 to 30 billion liters) of gasoline consumed over the vehicles' lifetimes - the largest share of which is due to legacy GHG flex-fuel vehicle credits that expire in 2016. These effects may be 30-40% larger in practice than we estimate here due to optimistic laboratory vehicle efficiency tests used in policy compliance calculations.

No abstract