Electrification Coalition - Fleet Electrification Roadmap

8/8/2019 Electrification Coalition - Fleet Electrification Roadmap

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/electrification-coalition-fleet-electrification-roadmap 1/78

Fleet Electrifcation RoadmapREVOLUTIONIZING TRANSPORTATION AND ACHIEVING ENERGY SECURITY

November 2010



©CEC.T EC

. A

, .

T ,, z

.

Fleet Electrifcation RoadmapREVOLUTIONIZING TRANSPORTATION AND ACHIEVING ENERGY SECURITY

November 2010



leet electriication roadmap

Table o Contents

Letter rom the Electrifcation Coalition 5

Executive Summary 8

PRIMER

Electrifcation o the Transportation Sector 17

Overview 19

The Case or Electrifcation 31

A Growth Sector or Jobs 40

Market Outlook 42

Expanding the Demand Side 44

PART ONE

The Case For Fleets 46

1.1 Overview 49

1.2 Fleet Demographics 50

1.3 Advantages o Fleet Operators 54

Total Cost o Ownership Approach to Acquisition 56

Route Predictabilit y 58

High Vehicle Utilizati on Rates 60

Use o Central Parking Facilities 62

Importance o Maintenan ce and Service Costs 65

Lower Electricity Rates 66

Alternati ve Business Models 67

Corporate Sustainabi lity Initiati ves 70

PART TWO

Fleet Challenges 72

2.1 Overview 75

2.2 Fleet Challenges 76

Technology Costs 78

Capital Expenditures vs. Operating Expense 83

Battery Residual Value 84

Fleet Inrastructure Issues 87

Utility Impact o Dense Charge Networks 88

Market Perception 92

PART THREE

Identiying Fleet Opportunities 94

3.1 Overview 97

3.2 Modeling Assumptions 99

3.3 Key Findings 106

3.4 Case Studies 111

Sales, Service, Utility Cars 112

Light Sales, Service, Utility, Short Haul 115

Light Government 118

Medium Short Haul, Sales & Service 121

3.5 Fleet Adoption o GEVs in 2015 124

PART FOUR

Policy Recommendations 126

4.1 Fleet Microsystems 129

4.2 Other Policies 134

Conclusion 140

Appendix A: Top 50 Commercial Fleets 142

Appendix B: Available Vehicle Matrix 144

Key to Terms 148

Acknowledgements 150



leet electriication roadmap4 preace

LETTER FROM THE ELECTRIFICATION COALITION

In November 2009, the Electrication Coalition released

the Electrication Roadmap, a comprehensive policy

ramework analyzing the state o the electric drive vehicle

industry and the barriers to achieving higher rates o

penetration in America’s light-duty vehicle eet. The goal

o the Roadmap was ambitious: to transorm the U.S. light-

duty ground transportation system rom one that is oil-dependent to one

powered almost entirely by electricity, enhancing U.S. economic prosperity

and saeguarding national security. The report proposed an ambitious

ederal initiative to establish ‘electrication ecosystems’ in a number o

American cities. Electrication ecosystems—also known as deployment

communities—were designed to move grid-enabled electric vehicles (GEVs)

past early adopters and into mainstream consumer markets.

The Electrication Roadmap envisioned a competitive selection process

managed by the Department o Energy (DOE). To compete, applicant

cities and communities would need to demonstrate that they had made

signicant progress toward establishing the regulatory environment

in which GEVs would thrive. The most competitive applications would

demonstrate the support o a broad range o public and private stakeholders,

including utilities, utility regulators, large local employers, vehicle and

charger OEMs, and state and local governments. The winning communities

would be eligible or targeted, amplied, temporary subsidies or consumers,

inrastructure providers, and utilities. The program was proposed to advance

in two phases and expire in 2018.

OUR MISSION

The Electrication Coalition is dedicated to reducing America’s

dependence on oil through the electrication o transportation. Our

primary mission is to promote government action to acilitate deployment

o electric vehicles on a mass scale. The Coalition serves as a dedicated

rallying point or an array o electrication allies and works to disseminate

inormed, detailed policy research and analysis.

ELECTRIFICATION COALITION MEMBERS

John T. ChambersChairman & CEO, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Timothy E. ConverChairman, President & CEO, Aerovironment, Inc.

Peter L. CorsellNon-Executive Chairman, GridPoint, Inc.

David W. CranePresident & CEO, NRG Energy, INC.

Alexander M. CutlerChairman & CEO, Eaton Corporation

Steven "Mac" HellerCo-Chairman & Interim CEO, CODA Automotive

Peter A. DarbeeChairman, CEO, & P resident, PG&E Corporation

Charles GassenheimerChairman & CEO, Ener1, Inc.

Sei GhasemiChairman & CEO, Rockwood Holdings, Inc.

Carlos GhosnPresident & CEO, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd

Jerey R. ImmeltChairman & CEO, General Electric Company

Ray LaneManagingPartner,KleinerPerkinsCauield&Byers

Richard LowenthalFounder & CEO, Coulomb Technologies, Inc.

Alex A. MolinaroliChairman, Johnson Controls-Sat andPresident, Johnson Controls Power Solutions

Reuben MungerChairman & CEO, Bright Automotive, Inc.

Jim PiroPresident & CEO, Portland General Electric

Mike SegalChairman & CEO, LS Power Group

Frederick W. SmithChairman, President & CEO, FedEx Corporation

Eric SpiegelPresident & CEO, Siemens Corporation

Andrew C. TaylorChairman & CEO, Enterprise Holdings

David P. VieauPresident & CEO, A123 Systems, Inc.



preace leet electriication roadmap6

16.3 2009,

’

- OEM

. M ,

-

f

. P ,

. T

-à-

.

F

z , -

z , . I ,

, z

-z

q, -

z. F

,

-

. T -

.

O ,

. F

q .

F -

. E

, ,

:

j .

F .

B OEM ,

, -

U S,

-

. I ,

, ,

- -

U.S.

A .

D -

-

GEV . W ,

- -

,

,

. I

A 2010, DOE

-

A R

R A

.

D GEV-

-

, DOE

2035, 5.1

EV PHEV

300 -

U S, 1.7

.

T

. T

. T,

E R -

14 - -

U S 2020 120

2030, -

. U, E R

,

75 -

2040 (, 94

U.S.

-).

T , -

E R

, . B

- . S

,

-

GEV

,

. T E R

z-

,

GEV -

- .

F, E R

-

GEV -

. D

--

z

-

- . T

,

IT -

.

T

-

, , -

. T , ,

,

, .

Expanding the Market or GEVs: Fleet Vehicles

T E R -

, 230 -

40 U.S.

. A -

. Y,

-

,

-

. T

,

.

I , ’

q

. W

The Electrication Roadmap

targeted a substantial shit in

transportation energy use, such

that 75 percent o light-duty

vehicle miles traveled would be

electric miles by 2040.



leet electriication roadmap

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Between 2003 and 2009, the global oil market witnessed its

most signifcant period o volatility in nearly a generation.

Ater relentlessly increasing or fve years, oil prices spiked

to historical highs o more than $147 per barrel in July 2008.1

Not by coincidence, the home mortgage and global fnancial

crises erupted just a ew months later, plunging the U.S.

economy into its most severe recession since World War

Two. Ater retreating to less than $40 per barrel in early

2009, oil prices have now averaged more than $70 per

barrel throughout 2010.2

H

U.S. . T

2003— 1970—

, -

, ,

. W

,

.

T

U.S.

. P 40

U.S. , .12

3

I 2008, -j -

, A

$900 - —6.4

GDP.4 W 2008

, -

5 GDP 2005,

10

U S. 5

M 70 -

.6 A 14

, U.S.

1 U.S.DE(DOE),EIA

(EIA),P N,MC OS P,

://..///___1_..

2 Id .

3 BP, , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010, 41.

4 EC DOE, AE R 2009 (AER 2009),

T3.5.

5 Id.

6 DOE, AER2009 ,T 5.13 5.13.

. 7 H

— , ,

— , 11 -

.8 W

, 94

.9 I ,

A A

.

T

U S

. R

, f -

. B 2008 2030,

C, I, M E

70 15

. 10 B

-

. I ,

, , f

. W

,

7 DOE, AER2009 ,T 5.13 5.13;BP,, SR

W E2010,11,12.

8 DOE,OfEEf RE(EERE),

TransportationEnergy DataBook 2010,T1.14.

9 DOE, AER2009 ,T2.1.

10 IEA, WorldEnergy Outlook 2010,AA,N

P S.

Source: DOE; IMF

FIGURE E1

Net U.S. Government Debt as a Percentage of GDP

Net Government Debt

Spot WTI

Debt Percent of GDP WTI, $/BBL (real $)

0

20

40

60

80

100%

201520102005200019951990

0

20

40

60

80

100

8 e xe cu ti ve su mm ar y



executive summary leet electriication roadmap10

,

2008 .

T U S -

.

W f

— —

U.S. ,

. S,

U.S.

. T

,

-

-

- .

E

- . E -

, , ,

. H -

(GEV)—

— z

U S, ,

, -

. S,

-

- .

I ,

U.S.

, 50

A’ .11 D

; ,

,

,

U S.

A

, GEV U

S

.

T GEV U.S. -

D 2010 2011. G M,

N M C, F M C

-

(EV) -

(PHEV) A . T N A

350,000

2015.12 H, -

. T ,

-

GEV U S. B

z -

U.S. ,

q.

11 U.S.DC,C B,FTS,

://..///..

12 PRTM .

T ,

GEV - . T

j

U.S. . P

- 40

U.S. .

H,

, -

. T

,

2010 2015, -

. S, -

q .

B -

,

GEV . T -

—

—

- U.S.

7

q 2015. I , EV

PHEV

200,000 EV PHEV

2011 2015.

FIGURE E2

Change in Primary Oil Demand by Region and Sector (2007-2030)

Source: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009

Other

Industrial

Non-Energy Use

Transport

Power

-200 -100 0 100 200 300 400

OECD North America

Million Tons Oil Equivalent

OECD Pacific

OECD Europe

E. Europe/Eurasia

Africa

Latin America

Other Asia

Middle East

India

China

FIGURE E3

Annual Fleet GEV Sales Scenarios

Source: PRTM Analysis

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2015201420132012

Annual Sales (000 Vehicles)

Baseline

EC Policy Case

0

50

100

150

200

250

2015201420132012

GEVParc(000Vehicles)

Baseline

EC Policy Case

Between 2008and2030, increasedoil consumption in the

transportation sectorsof China, India, andthe Middle East

region isexpectedto account for70 percent oftheincrease

in global oil consumption.70%

FIGURE E4

Fleet GEV Parc Scenarios



leet electriication roadmap1 2 e xe cu ti ve s um mary

Hg V Uz R: F

z

. T

q

.

U C Pkg F: F

-

-

-

.

Ip M Sv

C: P

, -

.

Lw E R: T

-

—

— -

. T

-

-

.

Av Bu M: B

, -

.

Cp Sub: C

-

. GEV

-

.

F Iuu Iu: E

,

.

W L II $2,000

, -

z EV

PHEV . L III -

q, .

U Ip D Cg Nwk:

B EV PHEV

-

q

. I , -

f

. U

.

Mk Pp: P

-

’

. E

,

.

T 16

U S 2009.13 W

z ,

50 -

.14 T

, , ,

A. T

, -

, ,

, .

T

-

-

. M,

-

.

T C Owp App

Aqu: W ,

q

.15 C, ,

, -

, .

Ru Pb: T -

-

. I

,

-z z

,

.

13 PRTM ;T ,

R.L.P &C., AF, U.S.GS

A,GE C,U, .

14 B P C,2010 AF F(AFB),

://.-./S/.

15 EC,PRTM .

W

q

, . S

,

q . I , -

q

-

.

Tg C: B

-

. C -

, ,

f z -

. U,

- -

,

q.

Cp Expu v. Opg

Exp: T -

. T q-

’ , -

-

,

. E

.

B Ru Vu: T, -

-

. E -

70 80

. B

.

PART ONE

The Case or FleetsPART TWO

Fleet Challenges

0

100%0%



14 leet electriication roadmapexecutive summary

I , ,

- -

, -

F E R. T

(TCO)

q . T

ICE, HEV, PHEV-40, EV-100. T

TCO : ,

z , z

.

B C: T

-

. O

. P .

O .

Opz C: T z -

f

. B -z

z . O

.

P C: T z

,

-

- - .

T -

—

.

I , - -

2012

20,000 . T

HEV

ICE . I , GEV

2015 2018

$400/W.

T -

z

. I , :

pzg GEV wp u

w b ; g-zg EV b-

w g pp-

. T

q PHEV EV

. F E6

z .

F, -

, -

GEV

. T

$7,500 -

GEV 1-2 ;

$15,000 3 -

; $20,000 4-5 -

; $25,000 6-7

- . (T

2015,

, z 20 20.)

I ,

ICE, HEV, PHEV-

40 EV-100. F

-

,

PHEV EV

.

PART THREE

Identiying Fleet Opportunities

Source: PRTM analysis

FIGURE E7

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment — Operations Optimized + Government Incentives

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K

Sales, Service, Utility

Government

Taxi

Rental / Car Sharing

Sales, Service, Utility, Short Haul

Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul

Medium Utility, Government

Heavy Short Haul

Heavy Utility, Government

SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020+

ICE H EV PHE V 40 / EV 100

FIGURE E6

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment – Operations Optimized

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K


Government

Taxi



Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul


Heavy Short Haul


SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 020+


FIGURE E5

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment – Base

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K


Government

Taxi



Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul


Heavy Short Haul


SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 020+




1 6 e xe cu ti ve s um mary

PRIMER

Electrifcation o the

Transportation Sector

T E C

- -

. T

C

E R, j -

. T , ,

E R, -

. T

E R.

Fleet Microsystems

I , -

—

— /

. F ,

. T

-z

z -

. F , -

, q

. I , -

,

. F, -

, , , -

( )

.

T

,

-— . L -

, GEV

-

-

. W -

,

-

,

.

Fleet Policy Recommendations

E - -

.

C - - -

10 .

C

,

.

E

2018

.

A GEV

.

M q -

.

Iz

.

Other Policy Recommendations

R - -

z .

E

-

2010 2013.

I

.

E

- PHEV .

C S 30D GEV

GEV

( )

.

PART FOUR

Policy Recommendations



leet electriication roadmapspecial section18 primer: electriication o the transportation sector

Overview

T C

A R R A (ARRA),

’

. A 2009, U

S -

- - .

S -

A

E

, U S

- .

I, 2009, $1.98

30

, -

, ,

.1 N 20

$356 . 2

ARRA

U.S. . U , U.S.

$2,500

(W)

$417 W ,

$5,000. T , ,

$7,500. T 200,000

, -

q .3

I , D E (DOE) -

$300 25

C C P. T j -

U.S. . F

(CNG), q (LNG),

- .

B 3Q 2010, -

M

1 U.S.DE(DOE),OfEEf

RE (EERE), Recovery Act Awardsor Electric Drive

VehicleBattery andComponent Manuacturing Initiative ,

://1...///__.,

O27, 2010.

2 DOE,EERE, Recovery Act Awardsor TransportationElectrifcation,

://1...///_

_., O 27,2010.

3 AR RA(ARRA),S1141.

I. B 2012, 30

20 ’

U S.4 B 2015,

-

500,000 -

(PHEV) (HEV). 5

A ,

- (GEV)

. B 2010, N

- L , G M

C V.6 N

2011. 7 F

M C -

2012, T

C, F EV, - E. 8

A -

- C, B,

4 TWH, TheRecovery Act:Transorming theAmerican

Economy throughInnovation (A2010), ://.

./////R_A_I.

, O27, 2010.

5 Id.

6 E D,“N LB PI J,U.S.

D D,” ://..//2010/10/-----j--

--.,(O 22,2010); ABC N,“N

CA C D H, F,” ://

../B/S?=11985920,(O27, 2010).

7 A, “N L ,8-

,” ://../2010/07/27/-

----8---/,(J 27,2010).

8 CFR,“F P EV H,”

://../-/--

---/,(O 15,2009).

ABSTRACT

The electric vehicle industry has gained signicant

momentum over the past several years. Strong

investment rom the private and public sectors

has placed the United States on a path to global

competitiveness in advanced battery manuacturing,

and there appears to be strong demand or the rst

wave o grid-powered vehicles. Electric vehicles oer

the possibility o a transportation sector delinkedrom oil, which would dramatically improve

economic and national security while reducing

emissions. While personal-use passenger vehicles

will continue to be the key market, other targets—

such as commercial and government eets—could

help drive early demand.

Want To Learn More?

Visit ElectrifcationCoalition.org to

download the Electrifcation Roadmap

or request a printed copy.

A worker checks production o lithium-ion automotive batteries in a

Johnson Controls Advanced Power Solutions plant.

special section





primer: electriication o the transportation sector leet electriication roadmapspecial section22 special section leet electriication roadmap

Oil and the U.S. Economy

T

— —

2007-2009 . T U.S.

20.6

() 2003 2007, q 25 -

.10 H -

2007

10 — 20.7 2007

18.7 2009, 1997.11 I 2008

2009, U S

19

.12 T 2010

19.3 , .13 A

U.S. -

, -

f A ,

‘ ’

U S.14

A , U S

. I , U S

’ , -

. A 14

,

. T

230 - U.S.

, 40

.15

F

8.7

,

q

12

.16 A ,

71 U.S. . 17 D

-

, 94

- .18

1 0 B P, , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010,11,

..;SAFEA.11 Id.

12 Id.

13 DOE,EIA(EIA), Weekly Petroleum

StatusReport ,O6,2010,T1.

14 S A’ FE,“SAFE IR: H

U.S.R PD,” (O5, 2010), 3, 12.

1 5 D OE , E IA , AnnualEnergy Outlook 2010(AEO 2010),T A-7

58, ://...//

/_., O27, 2010.

16 DOE,EIA, AEO 2010,T67.

17 DOE, AnnualEnergy Review 2009 (AER2009) ,F5.0.

18 Id.,T2.1.

S , -

A .

P 40 U.S.

, . 19

A -

6.4 GDP 2008

5 GDP 2010. 20

M

U.S.

2010 2035. R D E (DOE) -

j

2035 - ,

j -

. O, q

6.8 2035 DOE’ . 21 D j

. T U.S.

-

237 2007 311 2035,

13.4 -

.22 F

51 2035. 23

L-, -, - -

U.S. , j .

S 1973, 100 - U.S.

—

3.9 . 24 T

, -

.

C U.S.

. O , A

,

, -

. W

,

.

1 9 B P, , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010, 41.

20 SAFE DOE, AEO 2010,T3.5;BP,.,

StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010;DOE,EIA, OctoberShort Term

Energy Outlook ; U.S.BEA.

21 DOE, AEO 2010,TA-11;SAFE.

22 Id.,60.

23 Id ., 67.

24 DOE, TransportationEnergy DataBook 2009 (TEDB 2009),T1.14,

://-..//.,

O27, 2010.

U.S.

- .94%

FIGURE P3

Liquid Fuel Consumption, Historical and Forecast

Electric PowerRes and Comm.IndustrialOtherMilitaryRailMaritimeAviationBusesHeavy-DutyMedium-DutyLight-TruckAuto

0

5

10

15

20

25

2035203020252020201520102007

Million Barrels per Day

FIGURE P4

Change in U.S. Petroleum Consumption

Diesel

Jet Fuel

Total

Gasoline

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

20352031202720232019201520112007

Index: 2007=1

Source: Figure P3 — DOE, ORNL, TEDB Ed. 29; Figure P4 — DOE, AEO 2010; Figure P5 — DOE, ORNL, TEDB Ed. 29

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks

Buses

Light-Duty Trucks

Cars

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

20081973


FIGURE P5

Change in U.S. Petroleum Demand, 1973–2008

special section



primer: electriication o the transportation sector leet electriication roadmapspecial section24 special section leet electriication roadmap

Economic Costs o Oil Dependence

A U S

, U.S.

1970 z

.25 A 58

,

.26 I 2007, U.S.

$295 . I 2008,

,

$388 .27 B

, U.S.

- -

$300 2010.28

T U.S.

. S

D 2007,

U.S. .29 F ,

56 U.S. 2008

55 2009.30 I ,

U.S.

, C,

NAFTA EU. W

30

U.S.

N A,

48

OPEC

U S

.31

A

OPEC

U.S. ,

.

D -

A . R

O R N L (ORNL),

2 5 D OE , AER2009 ,F5.2.

26 Id., T 5.1 3.9.

27 Id., T3.9.

2 8 D OE , E IA ,October2010 Short Term Energy Outlook; DOE,EIA,

Weekly Petroleum StatusReport (O6,2010);SAFE.

29 U.S. C B,Of F TS; EC .

30 Id.

3 1 D OE , AER2009 ,T5.4.

. F,

. W

, f -

, -

. S,

- .

A ,

. ORNL

U.S.

1970 2009 $4.9

.32 F 2008 ,

$500 .33

P ,

35 -

. I ,

. A ,

- -

.

A,

. B

,

70 . S ,

( ),

.

32 DOE,EERE,VTP,TheCost oOil Dependence,

://1...///2010_

632.,O 27,2010.

33 Id.

FIGURE P6

Monthly U.S. Petroleum Trade Decit

Monthly U.S. PetroleumTrade Deficit

Percent of TotalTrade Deficit

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

20102009200820072006200520042003200220012000

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%Billions (Nominal $)

FIGURE P7

Oil Prices And Economic Growth

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10%

201020052000199519901985198019751970

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

$100perBarrel

Oil Prices

ChangeinGDP

Change in GDP

Source: Figure P6 — U.S. Census Bureau; Fi gure P7 — U.S. Bureau o Economic Analysis; Figure P8 — Greene, David L., and Janet L. Hopson, "The Costs o Oil Dependence 2009"

FIGURE P8

Economic Costs of U.S. Oil Dependence

0

100

200

300

400

$500

20082006200420022000199819961994199219901988198619841982198019781976197419721970

Loss of Potential GDP

Dislocation Losses

Wealth Transfer

Billion $2007

Since December 2007,

crude oil and petroleum

products have routinely

accounted or more than

hal o the monthly U.S.

trade defcit.

Oil tanker moored in loading bay o oil refnery in Houston, Texas.

special section





primer: electriication o the transportation sector leet electriication roadmapspecial sectionspecial section28

Assessing Energy Markets over the Medium Term

T -

.

R

.

U , C

6 2009

9 2010.44 M ,

. I ,

-

. O

3.6

2000, 9.6

2000 2009.45 T

j . O

. T, C I

63

.46

44 DOE,EIA,STEO,CTB,

://...////_q/.,

O29, 2010.

4 5 B P, . , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010, 11.

46 NK, “A A ‘ ,’” WS

J,O 9,2010.

E

. I ,

2003

’ q

-

. R C, I,

M E

. I , -

, , f

-

. T

OPEC

— 2 .47 I

,

.

G ,

C, I, M E -

70

2010 2030.48 T,

30 -

C; 2030,

10- ( F P12). A

, . O

47 DOE,EIA, ST EO, CT B,

://...////_q/.,

O29, 2010.

4 8 I EA ,WEO 2009,T1.3.

—D Hz— 5,000

. T ’

, -

. W -

, D

Hz

G M

z J 15.

L ,

-. T

—

U S, W E, z

A-P. T , -

q, -

IOC . A , IOC

.43

F -

, -

. S Bz,

G, C, W A

—

. A ,

j

. C -

. B -

.

43 IEA(IEA), WorldEnergy Outlook 2008( WEO

2008),T14.1.

Source: Figure P10 — DOE, AER 2009 ; Figure P11 — DOE, AER

FIGURE P11

Energy Related CO2 Emissions, End Use

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Transport

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

200019901980197019601950

Billion Metric TonsTransportation becomes the leading

source of energy-related CO2 emissions

FIGURE P10

Share of Energy-Related CO2 Emissions by Fuel & Use

Transport Oil

Other Oil

Electric Power Coal

Natural Gas and Waste

Other Coal

0

10

20

40

60

80

100%

2009200019901980197019601950

FIGURE P12

Light Duty Vehicle Stock by Region

Millions

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

RussiaJapanIndiaChinaUnited StatesEuropean Union

2007

2015

2030

Source: International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009




The Case or Electrifcation

E

- U.S.

. T

(HEV) f-

25 50 — —

z -

.57 M ,

,

.

T ,

-

-

. I , -

(EV) -

(PHEV). B EV PHEV

- . E

57 THI U.S.1999

TP 2000. Ff

. A DOE’2010

FuelEconomy Guide (://..//FEG2010.

), F FFWD I 22/31 /. T

FH FWD 41/36. U ,

f 49 .I

, TP 51/48.

-f .

EV

. PHEV -

z -

.

T ,

—

—

U.S. -

. H, -

: -

. C

-

U.S.

q. V

. T

-

.

’ —

30 Oz E

C D (OECD)—

1997 2002.49

O OECD, .

M 90

- (NOC).50 W -

NOC

, j

,

,

j.51

M,

(IOC)

. 52

I , ,

, IOC

z

q, z ,

. A ,

-OPEC -

. C, -

C $50 $80

.53

F j G M,

4 9 B P , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2009, 8.

5 0 I EA ,WEO 2008,T14.1.

51 VM, "S P," FP (S/O2009).

52 IEA, WEO 2008,343-53(2008);BR,“G

I O:B DC C Mj,

D GCC2008,” 14 -34 (F.2,2009).

53 B B W,“PC CCO

S,C S,” J2, 2010.

$60 . 54 P

Bz, W C A,

F S U q .

W ,

.

I , -

2010

. W

,

OPEC 5.1 -

, 2001

2002, $20 $30 . 55

C

. U.S. 358

S 2010, 15

S.56 G -

,

. T

-

. A ,

$75 2010,

2003.

54 DOE,EIA, “PP Mj EP 2008,”

24 (D2009).

55 DOE,EIA,STEO,CTB,

://...////_q/.,

O29,2010.

5 6 D OE , E IA ,Weekly Petroleum StatusReport (O6),

://..//_//_/

___//2010/2010_10_06/

_2010_10_06., O29, 2010.

Electrication o

transportation re

the most promisin

near-term opport

or undamentally

reducing Americ

dependence on oi

FIGURE P14

Electrication Architecture

30 MI90% of U.S. vehicle trips

are less than 30 miles.

RetailLocations

Workplace

ResidentialHome

Electric Grid

48% Coal

20% Nuclear

22% Natural Gas

9% Renewables

·············· Power Generation ······················· Transmission & Distribution ···························· Vehicle Charging ······················

FIGURE P13

Oil Demand, China


0

2

4

6

8

10

201120102009200820072006200520042003200220012000199919981997199619951994199319921991

Sources: DOE, EIA



leet electriication roadmapspecial section leet electriication roadmap32 special sectionspecial sectionprimer: electriication o the transportation sector

Today's familiar hybrid-electric vehicles offer improved efciency over traditional internal

combustion engine automobiles. However, by incorporating a larger battery and drawing electric

power from the grid, plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles offer a step change improvemen

in energy security.

FIGURE P15

Vehicle Congurations

INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE VEHICLE HYBRID-ELECTRIC VEHICLE (HEV) PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE (PHEV) ELECTRIC VEHICLE (EV)

KEY FEATURES

Traditional IC engine vehicles store liquid uel—typically gasoline or diesel—

onboard in a uel tank. Fuel is combusted in the engine, which delivers

mechanical energy to the axle to propel the vehicle. The high energy density

o gasoline and the ability to store signifcant volumes o uel onboard

allow IC engine vehicles to travel several hundred miles without reueling.

Today's internal combustion engines, however, are highly inefcient. IC

engine automobiles turn less than 20 percent o the energy in gasoline into

power that propels the vehicle. The rest o the energy is lost to engine and

driveline inefciencies and idling.

KEY FEATURES

HEVs retain the use o an IC engine, and thereore require a liquid uel tank.

Additional energy is stored in a battery, rom which electricity ows to an

electric motor. The motor transorms electrical energy into mechanical

energy, which provides some measure o torque to the wheels. In a typical

parallel hybrid system, both the engine and the motor provide torque to the

wheels. In a series hybrid system, only the electric motor provides torque

to the wheels, and the battery is charged via an onboard generator. Power

split systems utilize two electric motors and an IC engine. Both the engine

and the larger electric motor can provide torque to the wheels—jointly or

independently.

KEY FEATURES

Like traditional hybrids, PHEVs retain the use o an internal combustion

engine and uel tank while adding a battery and electric motor. However,

PHEVs utilize much larger batteries, which can be charged and recharged

by plugging into the electric grid. PHEV batteries are capable o powering

the vehicle purely on electricity at normal speeds over signifcant distances

(approximately 40 miles) without any assistance rom the IC engine. When

the battery is depleted, PHEVs use the IC engine as a generator to power the

electric motor and extend their range by several hundred miles. PHEVs can

be confgured as a series hybrid system or a power split system.

KEY FEATURES

EVs do not incorporate an IC engine or conventional uel system. Elec

vehicles rely on one or more electric motors that receive power rom

onboard battery to provide the vehicle's propulsion and operation o

accessories. EV batteries, which are typically larger than batteries in H

or PHEVs to support vehicle range, are charged by plugging the car in

device (electric vehicle service equipment) that receives electrical po

rom the grid.

Engine Transaxle Fuel System

Engine

Electric MotorTransaxle

Fuel System Fuel System

Battery Battery Batter

Charger Plug & Charger Plug & Charger

Engine

Electric Motor

Generator

Transaxle

Electric Motor

Transaxle

MILD HYBRID (PARALLEL SYSTEM)

• Still relies heavily on IC engine

• Efciency gains o 15 to 20 percent

• Battery provides additional power during acceleration;

powers the A/C and other systems during idling

• Regenerative braking charges battery

FULL HYBRID (POWER-SPLIT SYSTEM)

• Still relies on IC engine, but less than mild hybrid

• Efciency gains o 25 to 40 percent

• Larger battery provides enough power or autonomous

driving at low speeds

• Smaller motor acts as generator to charge the battery

HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE SYSTEMS PLUG-IN HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE SYSTEMS

PHEV (SERIES HYBRID SYSTEM)

• Only electric motor provides torque to wheels

• IC engine serves only to augment the battery ater depletion

• Uses no gasoline while battery is sufciently charged

• Charges battery through grid connection and

regenerative braking

PHEV (POWER-SPLIT SYSTEM)

• Both the motor and IC engine can provide torque to

the wheels

• IC engine provides torque when required (blended mode)

• Charges battery through grid connection and

regenerative braking




A , -

U.S. , PHEV EV 100

. T

-

.

M ,

, ,

q

. I, PHEV

EV U

S.61 N .

A , 30

CO2 45

q .62 M,

.

O , U.S.

32 f . 63 I , -

-

43 ,

-

.64 C-

f 60 , 65 ,

61 ORNL(ORNL), PotentialImpacts oPlug-in

HybridElectric Vehicleson RegionalPower Generation(2008),

://../~///7922___..

62 DOE,EIA,NG I T,58 (T2)(1999).

63 Já M.Bé,“HEfPGR E:

NCCIP,2 (2009).

64 DOE,EIA, Electric PowerAnnual2009 (EPA2009),A O

HR S ES, ://...

////53..

65 GEE,“GTCCP,”4,

../_//__///

__., A28,2009.

, -

70 .66

O O R N

L

PHEV U S.67 T

19 PHEV

2020, N

E R C (NERC) . A

NERC , -

PHEV .

M , A N L -

--

PHEV z

U S.68 T PHEV-40

- (CD)

CO2

z, PHEV-40

CD HEV. I I,

- , PHEV

,

HEV .

(T A 51

PHEV-40, ).

Eg Su: E

66 A’ 45

, (60

f) (32 f).

67 ORNL, PotentialImpacts oPlug-in HybridElectric Vehicleson Regional

PowerGeneration (2008).

68 ANL, Wellto WheelsAnalysiso EnergyUseand

GreenhouseGasEmissionsin Plug-inHybridElectricVehicles (2010).

The Advantages o Electric Drive

E -

f -

. I , f-

,

80 90

. T f

.

Ru Fu C: E -

- . W

$3.00 , f

30

10 . A -z

20

15 , -

10

30 . C,

- PHEV -

j 2.5

, 10

(W) f 4

W. A 2.0 W, -

PHEV EV 5 .

Ef U Eg: L EV

PHEV -

-q . T

f . H,

f

. F EV PHEV,

f q

. U

, f

. A ICE 30

-

1,000 B . A

PHEV -

1,000 B

,

.

Ru E: E

CO2

. T’

30

z

. Q

PHEV EV, -

48 U.S.

- . 58 T

, 70

U.S. .59

H,

. A --

q

. O

N R D C E P

R I PHEV-20 -

,

100

f . 60

5 8 D OE , AER2009 ,T8.2.

59 Id.

60 EPRI(EPRI),NRD

C&CCG, EnvironmentalAssessmentoPlug-InHybrid

ElectricVehicles:Volume1:NationwideGreenhouseGasEmissions (2007).

Notes: 1. EV efciecny assumes electricity generated rom natural gas at the U.S. national average heat rate o 8,305 Btu/kWh; 10 percent line loss; and motor efciency o 4.0 mi/kWh

2. Full hybird mpg assumed at 50 3. ICE mpg assumed at 30 4. NGV mpg-e assumed at 28 5. Gaoline assumed at $3/gal; CNG at $1.50 GGE; electricity at $0.10/kWh.

FIGURE P16

Relative Efciency of Sample Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Traditional ICENatural Gas VehicleFull HybridEV

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12Fuel Cost per Mile ($)Miles traveled per 1,000 BTU

Source: Electric Power Research Institute; Natural Resources Deense Council

FIGURE P17

Vehicle Emissions by Technology and Fuel

Gasoline Tank-to-WheelsGasoline Well-to-Tank Electricity Well-to-Wheels

0 100 200 300 400

PHEV - Renewables

PHEV - 2010 Old CC

PHEV- 2010 Old GT

PHEV - 2010 Old Coal

HEV

Conventional Vehicle

Grams of CO2 per Mile




WTP (On-Board)

PTW(On-Board)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

PHEV-40 CSPHEV-40 CDPHEV-10 CSPHEV-10 CD

Conventional Gasoline

Grams of CO2 per Mile BTU per Mile

WTP (Electric)0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

CAWECCILNY - ISO

HEV

PTW (On-Board)

Conventional Gasoline

HEV

WTP= Well-to-Pump;PTW =Pump-to-Wheels;CD= ChargeDepleting;CS= ChargeSustaining

FIGURE P18

Well-to-Wheels Emissions: PHEV-40 in CD ModeFIGURE P19

Well-to-Wheels Petroleum Use

Sources: Figure P18, P19 — Argonne National Laboratory; Figure P20 — U.S. Bureau o Economic Analysis; BP, plc., Statistical Review of World Energy 2010

FIGURE P20

Oil Intensity of the U.S. Economy (Real $2005)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

2010200520001995199019851980197519701965

Barrels of Oil / $1,000 of GDP

. E — -

- —

z . I

, PHEV

,

50 HEV.69 M

EV PHEV,

HEV f ICE ,

U.S. z

.

B 1975 1985, U S

-

.70 T -

69 Id.

7 0 B P , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010,11; U.S.B

EA; SAFE.

2.5

. B 1985, ,

. A

f-

. O ,

1 ,

-

-

, f .

T -

U.S.

. W

,

f .

The Benefts o Electricity

G- —PHEV

EV—

U.S. . V

, ,

CO2

-

.

E Dv D: E

, , , , ,

, , , , .

A , . I

, j 1 U S

2009 .71

A - , -

,

, ,

-

, . T

. A

, U S

.

I ,

-

. A

. T U S .

I 2009, 12

, 90

N A (C

M).72 T U S

. F- , ,

C A.73

E P Sb Rv

Ixpv: E

. O 25 ,

. S

1983, -

U S

2

7 1 D OE , AER,T8.2.

72 DOE, AER,T6.3.

73 DOE, EIA, 2008 U M A R (UMAR 2009) . 1

(2009).

.74M,

5 --

.75 T ,

,

.

F,

,

. T

.76 I , -

-

. 77 F ,

21 2004

2006 ( --B ),

2006 48

2004,

17 .78 T

.

S, -

( --

74 DOE, AER2009 ,T 8.10.

75 Id.

76 DOE,EIA, “Energy inBrie-What EveryoneShould Know:How ismy

Electricity Generated,Delivered, andPriced?” ://.

..//.?=___

_.

77 DOE,EIA, “GasolineExplained: FactorsGasoline Prices”

://...//.?=_

__.

7 8 D OE , EPA2007 ,T4.5;DOE,UMAR2009,TS.1.;DOE, AER

2008,T8.10.

Average RetailGasoline

Average RetailElectricity

0

5

10

15

20

25

$30

2008200019921984197619681960

per Million BTU (Nominal)

Source: DOE, AER 2010; EC Analysis

FIGURE P21

Retail Electricity & Gasoline Prices



leet electriication roadmapspecial section38 primer: electriication o the transportation sector

FIGURE P22

Nymex Settlement Price

Natural Gas

Central Appalachian Coal

0

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

$7.00

Sep. '10May '10Jan. '10Sep. '09May '09Jan. '09

per Million BTU

FIGURE P23

U.S. Proved Reserves, Dry Natural Gas

0

50

100

150

200

250

2008200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996199519941993199219911990

Conventional

Coalbed

Methane

Shale Gas

Trillion Cubic Feet

Source: Figure P22 — DOE, EIA; EC Analysis; Figure P23 — DOE, EIA; Figure P24 — Credit Suisse

FIGURE P24

U.S. Coal Power Plant Capacity (GWh)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

341 115

65

58

103

Both FGDand SCR

Only FGD

Only SCR

No EmissionsControl

Total Fleet

-- ),

. T,

,

,

- ,

-- -- -

. B

,

GEV

.

T E Pw S Sub Sp

Cp: B -

, U.S.

‘- .’

I , -

. H,

24- — —

q

. T, U.S.

,

.

T Nwk Iuu A Ex:

U -

, q

. N ,

q -

, ’ -

—, , -

— .

T G w G C, D: C

U.S.

-

. F , -

. N

, . D

-

, - ,

.

H, U.S.

. T

—

, , —

. S

U.S.

. P

37 2000, 177

() 244 .79 Y,

. T C S M P

G C U.S.

2,000 , -

-- 100

’ .

T

. A

U.S. -

$6.00 B. 80 T -

—

—

. A ,

2009, .

I ,

2009 2010.81

T

-

. T -

f

U.S.

, .

M,

, q

U.S. .

I J 2010, E P A

q -

-

. T q

,

(SCR)

z (FGD) - .

C, 103 ( W) U.S. -

SCR FGD

. T EPA’ z O

2010, q

U.S.

,

EV PHEV

— .

7 9 B P, , StatisticalReview oWorld Energy 2010, 22.

80 CS, TheImpact oShaleGas,36, (S24,2010).

81 Id., 33.

special section



primer: electriication o the transportation sector leet electriication roadmapspecial section40 special section leet electriication roadmapspecial section

A Growth Sector or Jobs

E f 2007-2009

, U.S. .

C f U.S.

9.6 , j

9.6 2011, .82

I , G R f

2009, A .

T

,

. S

D 2007, U S 2.1

j,

j 11.7 — 32

J 2001. 83 A 1

10 A -

,

j .84

T

: 2009

U.S.

C . 85 T

C

,

C .

C U.S.

2008,

2009.86 T C 13.7

— -

, U.S.

5.7 - .87

I U S, -

2007 2008

2009

. T -

16.1 z 2007.88 A

2008, , -

20 2007 .89 T

82 IMF,WorldEconomicOutlook2010,T2.2,70.

83 U.S.DL,BLS,U.S.Employment

Situation ,TB-1(O6,2010),://../.

/...

84 Id.

85 UN,IS,://../

//..

86 W' AG,Ward'sMotor VehicleFacts andFigures 2010.

87 Id.

88 MI, ://../.

89 Id.

j 9.2 -

z S 2009, A

2010 j 11.3 z

.90 A

, U.S.

. B

2000 2009, A

50 , 1.13 560,000.91

E -

. E

U

S j

. Dz -

A ,

.92

T U S

-

. T C

$15 -

z .93

C

EV 20

. 94

T E,

f,

.

M

— HEV PHEV EV—

U S,

. A -

-

z .

90 Id.

9 1 D OE , OR N L, TEDB 2009,T10.18.

92 T G,“A123 M,” BH, S

24,2010; SB, “ED

, $237 ,” A,J22, 2010;

CA,“H I L BPJ?” F24,2010.

93 D Bz,“CIB E H C,”

N YT,A 19,2010.

94 OF, “CM: GH C T

PE C,” D J N,O28, 2010.

FIGURE P25

U.S. Unemployment Rate

0

2

4

6

8

10%

2010200820062004200220001998199619941992199019881986198419821980

FIGURE P26

Share of Global Manufacturing Output

ChinaUnited States

0

5

10

15

20

25

30%

20082004200019961992198819841980

Source: Figure P25 — International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook 2010 ; Figure P26 — United Nations Statistics; Figure P27 — DOE, ORNL, TEDB Ed. 29

FIGURE P27

U.S. Vehicle Manufacturing Employment

Parts - Other

Motor Vehicle - Other

Production Workers - Parts

Production Workers - Motor Vehicles0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2008200620042002200019981996199419921990

Thousand Workers




Market Outlook

A

, N A

. U.S.

,

--

f . L

-

z -

EV PHEV.

A , j -

-

- . I

U.S. 2010 2011—-

N L C V—V,

BMW, M, T, H, F, C,

EV PHEV. I ,

q . B

j OEM GEV

.

S, -

-

. M

.

T -

. H,

-

. I

-

,

,

.

O

, . A -

,

q ’

q. H -

:

-

; —

. A

.

A

- . A O 2010,

N L C

V . N -

-

L 2010 2011. 95 GM

95 CR,“ENL -,” M

26,2010.

C V 15,000 2011,

2012 . 96 D

, -

q. T

: 2010, 10

U

S, 1.5 HEV

230 - .97

A 3

, 1

U.S. - . 98

S ,

-

, U S -

. A ,

, ,

PHEV EV 12

2020. T

, ,

, .

T -

. F , j

96 D S,“GM EP 60,000VM B2012,”

DN,O15,2010.

97 DOE, AEO 2010,T58.

98 Id.,T 57 58.

62 U.S. - j

. H,

. I z ,

,

U S .

Source: Motor Intelligence

FIGURE P28

Total Monthly Annualized Auto and Light Truck Sales

0

5

10

15

20

25

201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999

SAAR in Millions

Source: EC Analysis

FIGURE P29

Median Forecast, U.S. PHEV and EV Sales Share (2020)

EV/PHEV % of New

Vehicle Sales

0

2

4

6

8

10

12%

Deutsche BankPRTMBloomberg New Energy FinanceRoland BergerBCGGlobal InsightDeloitteEIA




Expanding the Demand Side

I ,

,

- -

. B z ,

j. T -

40 U.S. -

60 -

.99 T -

— -

10 —

.

H,

,

-. T -

,

2010 2015, -

9 9 D OE , AEO 2010 ,T A-7.

- . S,

q .

B -

,

GEV . T

-

— -

—

- U.S. -

7

q 2015. I , EV

PHEV

200,000 EV PHEV

2011 2015.

I .

A

-

. U, -

. H, N

A ,

q 30 GEV

2015.

I , -

f-

GEV -. M,

- , -

z f ,

.

T -

, z

U.S. -

- . F

-

, -

z PHEV EV ,

. U, -

PHEV EV -

. I ,

.

F, -

. W

-

, L II (220) L III (440)

q-

. E -

PHEV EV

.

F, EV PHEV

,

— — ,

. I , -

, -

-

PHEV

EV . B ,

, -

-, -

.

A

-

— -

A’

.

Light Truck Auto Heavy Duty Aviation Marit ime

Medium Duty

Military

Other

Rail

Bus

Non-Transportation

CommercialIndustrial

Residential

Electric Power

Transportation

FIGURE P30

U.S. Oil Demand By Sector

A New York Times Dodge Sprinter plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), which will be used or newspaper delivery, is seen April 11, 2007 in New York

City. The vehicle is the frst medium-duty plug-in hybrid vehicle on the East Coast and can operate up to 20 miles in zero-emission electric mode or as a

hybrid with a diesel.

Based on total cost o ownership

modeling conducted or his report,

commercial and government

feets could contribute substantial

volume commitments in the early

development phases o the

GEV market.



PART ONE

The Caseor Fleets

1.1 OVERVIEW

1.2 FLEET DEMOGRAPHICS

1.3 ADVANTAGES OF FLEETS

C CL I C L G CE

T E

M ET

I I

EC MIC C E T IE - C FLEET FLEET E . LIC I E

T I T IE

I E

T I T IE

M I LE T E LET GET L I CLE T L

G

H E 1 H E TI L

I M E T I E

LIC

LIC

EM T T I

ECT

TTE

EHICLE

C T F

E HI

L I L E

E

E

I I

E I E IE - FLEE FLEE E LI I E

I IE

I E

I IE

ILE ELE I LE L E E I L

I E I E

LI

LI

E I

E

E

E I LE

F

E I

L I L E

E

E IE E I LE

E

E I

I F E

E

E LE I

E

E

L I LE L I E E E L I LE L E E I L

I E I E

LI

LI

E I

E

E

E I LE

F

E I



ABSTRACT

For electrifcation to meaningully impact U.S. energy and

national security, grid-enabled vehicles will ultimately need

to succeed in the personal-use passenger vehicle market.

However, during the early development o the electric vehicle

industry, while battery and vehicle costs remain high, other

market segments could prove critical or driving demand.

In particular, commercial and government eets could

represent major early adopters o grid-enabled vehicles.

The lower uel and maintenance costs associated with

grid-enabled vehicles—particularly EVs—could provide more

near-term economic value or eet operators than typical

consumers, particularly in higher mileage applications.

Moreover, the key challenges acing widespread consumer

adoption, including access to inrastructure, range anxiety,

and the higher upront costs o the vehicles themselves—

might be more easily managed by eet owners. Finally,

the implementation o corporate sustainability initiatives

in a number o American businesses could provide added

momentum or the purchase o highly efcient electric drive

vehicles in eet applications.

CHAPTER 1.1

Overview

There were more than 16 million public and private eet vehicles on the road in

the United States in 2009.1 While the size o individual eets varies signifcantly,

the top 50 eet operators together manage more than hal a million vehicles.2

F ,

, ,

A. T

, ,

, ,

.

D

q, , .

M , ,

-

. F

. I 2009, 80

1-5 U

S ; 20 . 3

T 10

3 .4

T

-

-

. M,

-

.

T

—

—

. F -

q .

1 PRTM ;T

, R.L.P, AF, U.S.GS

A,GE C,U, .

2 BP C,2010Automotive Fleet Factbook (AFB),

://.-./S/

3 Id. 9.

4 Id. 44.

B -

,

, -

. F

-

-

. I -

4 q-

2015,

3,000 MW . I

.

A z -

. W

,

,

-

.

F, ’ -

-

-

. U

A,

-

U

S. T

-

. R ,

. B ,

, -

, -

' HEV, PHEV, EV.

N

10

3 Mill

leet electriication roadmap48 part one: the case or leets



What Constitutes A Fleet?

For the purposes of this report, a eet is dened as ve or more vehicles under central commercial or government ownership.

Data has been aggregated from a number of sources, including the U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

R.L. Polk and Co., and industry publications such as Automotive Fleet. Data was also acquired from industry associations, eet

operators, vehicle OEMs, and other primary sources.

It is important to note that there are a variety of interpretations and denitions of eets, and these impact the way that data is

aggregated by different sources. Aggregating historical data series is particularly difcult as a result of changing denitions over

time. The Department of Energy Annual Energy Outlook reports sales, stock, and energy consumption data for light-duty vehicles(cars and SUVs) in eets of 10 or more only. In their annual Transportation Energy Data Book, Oak Ridge National Laboratory

denes eets as having 15 or more vehicles in operation or purchasing ve or more vehicles annually. This denition also serves

as the reporting criteria for prominent industry trade publications, including Automotive Fleet.

At least two important eet demographics are not covered by these denitions, and they are not directly addressed by this

analysis. First, smaller eets of less than ve vehicles, which may include as few as one or two vehicles in operation, are not

included. Second, less structured arrangements that may have some eet characteristics, but are not typically dened as eets,

are not included. An example would be an employer providing drivers with fuel reimbursement accounts.

CHAPTER 1.2

Fleet Demographics

Vehicle eets are utilized by an extremely diverse set o industries and government

agencies or an equally diverse set o purposes. Individual eet sizes vary rom less

than fve vehicles to as large as tens-o-thousands o vehicles.

F -

.

I 2009,

j -

(VIO), 74

(8.8 3.2 , ). P

,

, 4.4 VIO.

I , - -

U.S. -

, 28 .

S

, - U.S.

j-

. P

, , ,

(16

).

F -

z ,

- - - . 5, 6

I 2009, 4.8 -

4.3 1-2 -

. C 3 6 -

2.6 . C 7

8 - 3.9 .

T

0.8 . (S F 1A

.)

5 T -

49 CFR 523(2010).

6 G

.T

18 .T

U.S.D T

.

FIGURE 1A

Vehicle Class by Weight

EXAMPLE GROUP CLASS COMMON EXAMPLES GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT

Auto Class 1Ford Focus

Nissan Altima< 6,000 lbs

Light-Duty Trucks

Class 1Ford Ranger

GMC Canyon< 6,000 lbs

Class 2Dodge Ram

Ford F-1506,001–10,000 lbs

Medium-Duty Trucks

Class 3Ford F-350

GMC Sierra 350010,001–14,000 lbs

Class 4Ford F-450

GMC Sierra 450014,001–16,000 lbs

Class 5Ford F-550

GMC Sierra 550016,001–19,500 lbs

Class 6

Ford F-650

GMC Topkick

International Durastar

19,501–26,000 lbs

Heavy-Duty Trucks

C lass 7 Intern at io na l T rans star 2 6,001 -3 3,000 l bs

Class 8 Tractor Trailor > 33,000 lbs

part one: the case or leets leet electriication roadmap50 leet demographics



0 20 40 60 80 1000 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Class 8

Class 7

Class 6

Class 5

Class 4

Class 3

Class 1-2

Auto

Utility & Telecom / 500,000

There were nearly half a million vehicles in

operation in utility and telecom fleets in 2009.

The size of the asset class is somewhat evenly

distributed across vehicle classes, though the

light and heavy ends of the spectrum are most

prominent. Typical utility and telecom vehicles

range from light-duty cars and trucks used for

reading meters and making routine customer

visits to heavier trucks used to maintain and

repair damaged infrastructure.

7 3 % P r ivate Sec tor

2 7% Public Se c t o r

2 3 % S t a t e

& L o c a l

4 % F e d

e r a l

28% Short-Haul

Delivery

S a l e s & 1 1 %

S e r v i c e

R e n t a l 1 0 %

F lee t s 5 - 1 4 6 %

U t i l i t y &

T e l e c o m

3 %

O t h e r 3 %

1 3 %

L o n g - H a u l

D e l i v

e r y

1% Taxi

16.3 MillionFleet Vehicles In OperationIn the United States (2009)

1 1 .9 M I LLION VEHIC L E S

P u blic Sec t o r

P r i v at e Sec t o r

4. 4 Million V e h i c l e s

State & Local / 3.7 MillionState and local governments maintain 3.7

million fleet vehicles in operation,

including law enforcement vehicles. More

than two-thirds of state and local

government vehicles are autos or class

1-2 light-duty trucks. More than 10

percent are transit and other buses

operated by municipal and regional

transit authorities.

Sales & Service / 1.7 Million

Sales and service vehicles totaled 1.7 million in 2009.

The size of the asset class is somewhat skewed

toward the lighter end of the spectrum, with nearly

1 million autos and class 1-3 trucks in operation.

Typical sales and service vehicles range from

light-duty passenger car fleets in the pharmaceutical

industry up to class 8 refuse removal trucks.

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Short-Haul Delivery / 4.5 Million

Short-haul delivery vehicles made up one of the

largest fleet segments in the United States in 2009,

totaling 4.5 million vehicles in operation across all

vehicle classes. The size of the short-haul delivery

asset class is heavily skewed toward lighter trucks

and cargo vans. Nearly 50 percent of vehicles in

operation are class 1 and 2 trucks.

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Class 8

Class 7

Class 6

Class 5

Class 4

Class 3

Class 1-2

Auto

Long-Haul Delivery / 2.1 Million

There were more than 2 million long-haul freight

vehicles in fleet applications in operation in the

United States in 2009. The size of the asset class is

generally class 6 and higher, and class 8 vehicles

account for more than half of the total. Class 8

vehicles include combination tractor trailers as well

as other applications.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

Other / 450,000Other vehicles include privately owned and

operated school buses among other vehicles. In

2009, there were approximately 450,000 privately

owned and operated heavy-duty school buses in

the United States.

Fleets 5 - 14 / 960,000Class one automobiles in fleets with between 5

and 14 vehicles totaled 960,000 across multiple

industries in 2009. More detailed data is generally

not available.

Taxi / 150,000There were more than 150,000 vehicles operating

as part of taxi fleets in the United States in 2009.

Essentially 100 percent of these vehicles are

passenger automobiles and minivans or SUVs,

though cars account for the majority.

Rental / 1.6 Million

There were approximately 1.6 million rental fleet

vehicles in operation in 2009. The majority—76

percent— were automobiles. The rest were a mix

of class 1-5 trucks. Originally more focused on

longer trips like vacations, the rental industry

has expanded to meet the needs of predomi-

nantly urban consumers who do not own

vehicles but may need to use one on occasion.

Car sharing services are a good example of one

such new model.

0 300 600 900 1200 1500

Class

6-8

Class

4-5

Class

1-3

Auto

FederalState

Law Enforcement

Federal Vehicles / 650,000 There were approximately 650,000 federal fleet

vehicles in operation in 2009, operated by nearly

40 civilian agencies and the Department of Defense.

Civilian agencies accounted for 36.9percent of the

total, military agencies for 29.9percent, and the U.S.

Postal Service alone accounted for t he balance—33.2

percent. Postal light-duty trucks of less than 8,500

pounds GVWaccounted for 29.8 percent of all federal

fleet vehicles. Nearly two-thirds of the federal fleet is

class 1-3 trucks.

Unspecifiedmixof Class 1-5 Trucks

FIGURE 1B

Vehicles In Operation by Sector & Application

Total eet vehicles in operation totaled 16.3 million in 2009. The private sector

accounted for nearly three-fourths of the total. Within the public sector, state and

local government agencies accounted for 85 percent of the government total.

FIGURE 1C

Vehicles In Operation by Application & ClassNOTE: Vehicle Applications are listed in order of market share; vehicle class domains vary in scale and are measured in thousands.

52 leet electriication roadmappart one: the case or leets leet demographics



Hg V Uz R

F z . G -

,

z - ,

. T q

.

U C Pkg F

F

EV PHEV. T

. I , -

q () -

, z .

Ip M Sv C

T

. D

, EV

, PHEV HEV . P

,

.

Lw E R

T —

—

. T -

,

.

Av Bu M

F

. F , U

S ,

. F z

. F , EV

q EV .

Cp Sub Iv

I ,

-

. T

,

. E .

CHAPTER 1.3

Advantages o Fleet Operators

Commercial and government eets possess a number o key advantages

that could enable them to be early adopters o grid-enabled vehicles. These

advantages include the way eet managers make vehicle acquisition decisions

as well as certain unique operational traits o eets.

A

-

- , -

. W

-

A ,

-

. T

.

F , -

-. P , -

.

W , -

, ,

- q. T

PHEV EV

,

-z,

, - ,

.

F

.F ,

-

. H

z .

T C Owp App Aqu

W ,

q .7 C, ,

, , . I

-

j,

.

Ru Pb

T - - .

A $600 W (- 2010 8 ), -

$1,200 $20,000 -

. I , EV $48,000. H,

,

-z z ,

.

7 EC,PRTM .

8 P RT M .

100%0%

part one: the case or leets leet electriication roadmap54 advantages o leet operators



Ru Vu TCO

M

. M ,

-

. T

. T,

- . C -

,

. T

(-

, , f, .)

ICE .

T -

. I , PHEV

EV -

- - -

.

G EV PHEV ,

-

.

C,

-

.

Owp Suu TCO

A -

. I

,

. I ,

. M ,

;

, q .

E

. C

z

. V

z

. I ,

.

T

. T -

. I , z

, ,

. T

. A J 2010, 80

1-5 15

/ U S. 12

T

. A J 2010, -

20 1-5

15 .13

T 10 3

U.S. 2009.14

12 BP C, AFB 2010, 9.

13 Id.

14 Id. 44

Total Cost o Ownership Approach to Acquisition

C

,

(TCO)

. I

-

,

f.

C, -

, ,

,

z, 4- .

W ,

q-

. I

, 63

-

.9 J 18

. 10

W ,

q ,

9 F S,“S A NA

EE T,V B M” (2010).

10 Id.

,

.11

Understanding TCO

A ’

-

. I , TCO q -

, ,

. F - -

, TCO

, ,

( , , ), -

( , .)

.

F - , TCO q

. A EV

, , -

, -

. EV

IT

. T

.

T TCO -

- :

11 Id.

TCOInfrastructureIT Access

- IT Backbone

InfrastructureAllocation- Chargers

- Installation

Maintence Costs- Maintenance

- Repairs

Energy Costs- Gas/Diesel- Electricity

Lease Payments- Depreciation- Finance Fees

Down Payment- Vehicle

- Powertrain- Battery

Operating CostsCapital Cost Total Cost

TCOResidual Value- Vehicle- Battery

InfrastructureIT Access

- IT Backbone

InfrastructureAllocation- Chargers

- Installation

Maintenance Costs- Maintenance

- Repairs

Energy Costs- Gas/Diesel- Electricity

Initial Capital-Vehicle-Battery

-Powertrain

Operating CostsCapital Cost Capital Cost Total Cost

FIGURE 1D

Illustrative Total Cost of Ownership: Traditional OwnershipFIGURE 1E

Illustrative Total Cost of Ownership: Closed-end Lease




Route Predictability

T - -

EV PHEV

-z -

. F ,

- 100

U.S. . A 36.9 ,

,

-

PHEV-40 . 15

O ,

,

,

100 .16

F 1F

. E

, j

30 . 17

A , EV PHEV

-

40 (

). A

1 5 D OE , O RN L, TEDB 2009,F8.5.

16 Id. T8.14.

17 Id.

, -

: 90

30 .18

P

PHEV EV

- . A ,

PHEV EV

—- . M

,

-

PHEV EV. I , ’ EV PHEV

’

, . U,

; -

‘’ .

H, z -

. A ’

, 24 (W) -

100

$14,400 —33

19 (S F 1G). T

EV PHEV .

E GEV

1 8 D OE , OR N L, TEDB 2009,T8.3.

19 PRTM .

, -

’

,

10 . T

-

q

.

I , ‘-z’

,

. T

-

-

. I

,

z. F ,

. T

.

T

z . I -

, ,

,

,

( f , )

. T -

-z.

B - -

,

. F , z

5 EV 50

100

20 . T

z

-

(q)

, , -

z

- .

O q -

z

z

. I , OEM

.

O

, z .

O ,

-z

.

U,

- . I

,

'

-

. W

30 ,

, ,

EV PHEV - .

A ’ , z

EV PHEV ,

.

I ,

GEV

z . T

q ,

.

FIGURE 1F

Daily Miles Traveled for Each Vehicle in a Household

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Six-Vehicle HHFive-Vehicle HHFour-Vehicle HHThree-Vehicle HHTwo-Vehicle HHSingle Vehicle HH

Vehicle 6Vehicle 5Vehicle 4

Vehicle 3

Vehicle 2

Vehicle 1

Average Daily Miles Driven

FIGURE 1G

Battery Cost as a Percent of Vehicle Price

DRIVETRAIN CLASS KWH $/KWH BATTERY COST VEHICLE COST BATTERY % OF VEHICLE COST

HEV Auto 1.5 1,200 $1,800 $30,000 6

PHEV Auto 12 660 $7,920 $36,000 22

EV Auto 24 600 $14,400 $41,000 35

PHEV Class 4-5 29 792 $22,900 $67,000 34

EV Class 4-5 65 720 $46,800 $92,000 51

Source: Interviews, Published Vehicle Specs, PRTM Estimates

Source: DOE, ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book




FIGURE 1H

Average Annual Miles of Travelfor Household Vehicles by Age

VEHICLE AGE ANNUAL MILES TRAVELED (2009)

Less than 1 Year 12,800

1 Year 13,800

2 Years 13,500

3 Years 12,500

4 Years 11,800

5 Years 11,700

6 Years 11,300

7 Years 11,000

8 Years 10,300

9 Years 9,900

10 Years and Older 7,300

Average o All Household Vehicles 10,100

FIGURE 1I

Average Annual Miles of Travelfor Business Fleet Vehicles

B US IN ES S FL EE T V EH IC LE S A NN UA L MI LE S TR AV EL ED ( 20 08 )

Compact Cars 23,148

Intermediate Cars 23,412

Light Trucks 28,020

Minivans 27,852

SUVs 22,968

Full-Size Vans 25,212

FIGURE 1J

Average Cycle, Fleet Cars and Light Trucks

Source: Bobit Publishing Company

FIGURE 1K

Average Ending Months in Service, Business Fleet Vehicles

VEHICLE TYPE AVERAGE MONTHS IN SERVICE

Compact Cars 36

Intermediate Cars 29

Light Trucks 51

Minivans 36

SUVs 29

Full-Size Vans 56

100%0%

Source: DEO, ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book

High Vehicle Utilization Rates S

z . I -

, z

,

. D -

q ,

q L II q

(EVSE). H ,

. I ,

-

EV

PHEV, OEM.25

Vehicle Replacement Cycle

V z

. I ,

z

, -

. F ,

, 10 , z.

T -

z .

N, z

q -

.

F

- -

(j

z ). I 2008,

9.4

7.5 . 26 I ,

25 EC,PRTM .

26 DOE,ORNL, TEDB 2008,T3.9.

A ’ z

,

. F , -

. T

. S,

z .

I,

.R

7,30012,800

, .20

I ,

-z

. D 2008

28,020 -

- .21 T

23,000 .

U, , z

-

. H z

2 0 D OE , OR N L, TEDB 2009,T8.9.

21 BP C, AFB 2009.

f

ICE . A

, z

. P , -

z

q

, .

I 28,000

, 100

. T

, -

,

HEV/PHEV EV.

T z . I

—

—

16 24 .22 T

N Y C 100,000 .23

A , -

z -

, .

B P, -- -

,

T,

j S F.24

22 H Y,.,“A ,

z ,”Transportation,27:317–340(2000).

23 JV,“C WH-MH T;JS I'

I,” GC R.,J 29,2010.

24 J M,“BP’ TB S:A T S

W,” BNET,A2 7,2010.

-

2.4 .27 L

4.25 .28

C

.

D 2007-2009 ,

10 .29

O

. W

,

.

O

--

. I ,

10

-

. T ,

10 100,000

.30 S OEM

,

. I ,

.

R

,

-

. B

q 10

,

q .

27 DOE,ORNL, TEDB 2009,T7.2.

28 Id.

29 GEC,FS.

30 SD,“NLBWS CV' -8

Y 100,000 M,” E.,J 27,2010.

40

42

44

46

48

50

Q1 2010Q4 2009Q3 2009Q2 2009Q1 2009

45.646

46.8

45.2

42.6

Months in Service




18 L I . I ,

, 3.3 W - GEV . A L II 15A

- EV z 3.3 W

.

H L II

-

EV PHEV. C

L II $500 $2,000

.33 T q

50

2010 ( ,

). I

L II EVSE, -

q 220 . 34

T ,

EV PHEV .

Public Charging

F ,

- -

. S q-

, . S

L II

, EV -

. O

33 JM,“HC EV:C WV,”

N YT, M16, 2010.

34 Id.

L II ,

/

.

P- -

. I ,

q

— —

z

, -

.

N, - -

— EV PHEV—

. F -

, -

,

S. F PHEV ,

z

. I ,

- -

- .

Business Models and System-wide Costs

P -

. S,

,

z,

.

A ,

Use o Central Parking Facilities

S

- . PHEV EV

.

T q

,

, , . M, -

,

; -

;

z -

.

Private Charging Inrastructure

T j EV PHEV

-

. I ,

,

- - U.S.

.31 S -

3 1 D OE , O RN L, TEDB 2009,T 8.17.

,

.

F ,

. I

, L II

. A

,

. R

90 PHEV EV -

.32 F

,

EVSE.

I

,

. W

NEMA- 110

U S, EV

L II ,

EV

,

32 CE C, 2010-2011Investment Planor the

Alternativeand RenewableFueland VehicleTechnology Program,39,

(A2010), ://.../2010/

CEC-600-2010-001/CEC-600-2010-001-CMF.PDF

Years0 105 20 30 40 50

0

20

40

60

80

100%

10 Year Expected Charger Life

An average utilization rate above 60% should reduce the

charger’s payback period below the 10 year expected life.

6 Year Minimum Payback Period

Operating at peak utilization of 100%, the

payback period for a charger would be 6 years.

FIGURE 1M

Expected Payback Period on Public Level II Charges

FIGURE 1L

Charging Infrastructure: Terms of Service

CHARGER APPLICATIONS OUTLET ST YLE VOLTAGE AMPERAGE COST EV CHARGE TIM E PHEV CHA RGE TIM E

Level One Private

Standard

U.S. Outlet

110v 12A —

1 5-18 H ours 6-12 Hour s

Level Two Private / Public

Dryer or

Large Appliance

220-240v 12-30A $2K-$4K

3-7 Hours 1-3 hrs

Level Three P ri va te / C om me rc ia l I nd us tr ia l

440v $15K-$50K

20 to 30 Min.

Not Applicable

P




FIGURE 10

Maintenance and Service Costs as a Share of Operating Cost – ICE Vehicles

FIGURE 1P

Maintenance Cost – EV vs. ICE Vehicles

Importance o Maintenance and Service Costs

M -

.

ICE q -

. R

,

. A

,

, , ,

.

W

,

. A -

,

20 30

.37

F , . I ,

—

.

T -

.T

-

.

T EV,

.PHEV

- -

.T HEV.

37 EC AutomotiveFleet .

- . T

.

A EVSE 3.3 W

80 W (

29,200 W ) - . G

, -

, .

R U S -

,

10 W ( J 2010). I

20 , -

( ) j $289 . F

$3,500,

— ( )

. W z 50

, ,

L II

10- .

Fleet Charging Behavior

T

-,

- . I ,

-

, , . T

- -

,

f q

. I j , z

PHEV EV -

z

.

A U.S.

D C, 43.9

. 35

T -

, 50 z

11 50 .36

P —

— -

z q . I

, ,

-

. I ,

,

.

R

-

. T

PHEV, -

- . F EV,

, HEV.

35 U.S.DC,BC, 2002Vehicle

Inventory andUse Survey.

36 Id.

FIGURE 1N

Primary Fueling Option by Fleet Size

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

51 or more21 - 5011 - 206 - 101 - 5

Gas Station

Truck Stop

Own Facility

Other’s Facility

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

$0.14

Year 7Year 6Year 5Year 4Year 3Year 2Year 1

per Mile

EV Class 3 Truck

Petrol Class 3 Truck

< 24,000 mi

24,001–48,000 mi

48,001–80,000 mi

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35%

Light-TruckFull Size VanIntermediate CarsCompact Cars

Source: Figure 1O—DOE, ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book; Figure 1P—EC Analysis

Source: DOE, ORNL, Transportation Energy Data Book




Alternative Business Models

T q-

.

T - ,

- .

T

- ,

.

I ,

, ,

. A ,

,

. I ,

. I ,

‘-’ , ,

10

1-5 .41

I U S,

j

(TRAC) , - . I ,

- -

’ . G -

. H,

,

’ . I

-

,

. I -

, . T

41 GEC,FS.

z

.

F 1R TRAC

. I

( ) ,

( , )

. I

, -

.

U , TRAC

.

M, - -

- (. “ ”

). I , TRAC -

, -

z - .

Other Emerging Models

D , ,

,

. T

-

EV

.

Pg b M

T

EV PHEV

. T

,

j

Lower Electricity Rates

T — —

- . H f-

EV

PHEV

25

-

f

. A

, -

.

T U.S.

9 W 2009 ( $2005).38

H, -

- . R -

, 10.5

W 2009.39 I ,

, 9.3 6.2

W, .40 F

,

PHEV EV z.

3 8 D OE , AER2009 ,T8.10.

39 Id.

40 Id.

I -

,

— , -

z ,

. S, -

17,500 , -

q

EV 30 ICE -

$3.00 .

A

'

. I

EV PHEV , -

-

. T,

- .

I , PHEV EV

50 -

. W

- ,

j — — z

GEV . I ,

. (U

-

.) O-

.

FIGURE 1R

Sample TRAC Lease Outcomes

GAIN ON SALE LOSS ON SALE BREAK EVEN ON SALE

Capital Cost $22,000 $22,000 $22,000

Amortization Term 60 Months 60 Months 60 Months

Leased Months 48 Months 48 Months 48 Months

Book Value $4,400 $4,400 $4,400

Resale Value $5,200 $3,800 $4,400

Customer Impact $800 -$600 $0

C

41

2009.41%

FIGURE 1Q

Average Retail Prices of Electricty

ResidentialCommercial

All Sectors

Industrial

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.10

0.12

$0.14

20082004200019961992198819841980

Real $2005 per kWh

Source: DOE, EIA




. I -

,

.

T ;

,

, , . R -

. A 2003

2007—

-2008—

2008 2009.42 T,

$75 $85 ,

.

T

U S.43

I EV PHEV

q,

. O

-

- .

I “” ,

“”

42 DOE,EIA, PN, ://..//

//LH.?=PET&=RWTC&=M.

43 M Z,“COD WD,R G

I,” B ,S28, 2010.

. T

, q, .

I U S , -

—

. H,

. I ,

,

-

. I

,

.

Iuu Bug

J

, -

. T -

,

/ -

. H,

-

.

O

f . A

f

. W

, f

, , --

—

. Ef

q -

L

E E D (LEED) .

T

, - -

EV PHEV. H,

. I ,

,

.

Cv

F

,

z

PHEV EV . A

ICE EV PHEV

; . T,

.

PHEV EV -

. F ,

,

10 . I

—

, —

.

A PHEV

EV -

. W

,

z

. H, -

z

, PHEV EV -

. T

ICE

ICE

. Y - GEV -

. F -

,

.

FIGURE 1S

Change in Energy Prices (2000–2010)

Index: Jan. 2000=1

Crude Oil WTI

Retail Gasoline–US City Average

Retail Diesel–All Types

Retail Electricity–All Sectors

0

1

2

3

4

5

2010200920082006200520042003200220012000

Source: DOE, EIA; EC Analysis




Corporate Sustainability Initiatives

C

z' . I -

, -

-

, .44

W ,

“ ,” -

. I

,

.

A ,

. I 2010,

U.S.

$27.6 .45 O 2009 2014 ,

19 -

$65.9 .46

F ,

HEV, PHEV EV

-

. C C , ’

$70 ,

300 -

44 S,TCCL,“C‘D G’

M D JR T?” 2010N R,

J2010.

45 V,“USSBS2009-14,”O14,2010.

46 Id.

-

— -

. T

.

I -

, -

,

(

GEV )

.

I ’ -

“.” T - -

EV PHEV

. F ,

J C B Ef

z - “

” 5,300 .

T ,

q, , ,

. B -

, ,

,

— 370 .54

54 EC,PRTM .

F,

-

. I

N 2010, B P

S F M T

C B A A Q M

D

60 EV . T -

. 55 N

,

PHEV -

-.

55 JM,“BP BABS EV

T F,” BNET,N1, 2010.

FIGURE 1T

GEVs in Operation in Private SectorFleets, Global (End 2010)

0

5

10

15

20

25

AT&TUPSFedExFrito-LayPG&E0

200

400

600

800

1000

AT&TFedExXcelEnergy

JohnsonControls

StaplesFrito-LayPG&EBestBuy

EnterpriseHertzGeneralElectric

25,000 Vehicles113 Vehicles

Ford Motor Company’s Transit Connect Electric vehicle in Chicago, Illinois.

Source: EC Analysis

2009 -

.47 O j ,

UPS FE, HEV

.48,49 E

R-A-C 500 N L

. Hz GEV

- 2011.50 I ,

EV PHEV .

I S 2010, P C. F-L

21 S E

N

150 S EV 2011.51 T ,

100 ,

N Y, NY; C,

OH; F W TX. T

.52 G E C.

j

—25,000 -

,

50

.53 T

GE 12,000 C V PHEV.

I , -

- .

H, -

- -

’ , -,

.

I , GEV -

’ . U

,

, GEV

q —

47 TCC C,“R,”://.-./

z/_., N9,2010.

48 FE,“AE, CV,” ://..

./_/_/_/_, N9, 2010.

49 UPS,“AF DUPSIS,” ://

../F+S/A+F+D+UPS++I

+S, N9, 2010.

50 Hz C,“Hz C EVM

P,” P R,S21, 2010.

51 F-L,“F-LS ‘C’LFA-E

T NA,” P R,S 8,2010.

52 Id.

53 R,"GE25,000 2015," N11,2010.

FIGURE 1U

Committed GEV Purchases in Private SectorFleets, Global (2011 - 2015)




PART TWO

FleetChallenges

2.1 OVERVIEW

2.2 FLEET CHALLENGES



ABSTRACT

While commercial and government eets do possess a

number o important advantages that could acilitate

their adoption o grid-enabled vehicles, they will also

ace challenges. Some o the undamental cost and

technology issues aecting personal-use consumers

will also be problematic or eets. Today’s high lithium-

ion battery costs will limit the attractiveness o GEVs in

some instances. High costs or drivetrain components and

the need to invest in inrastructure will also impact the

economics o GEVs.

Vehicle leasing and eet owners’ access to capital may

allow them to address these issues more easily than the

typical consumer, but GEVs will also require many eet

owners to be exible and adapt to new business and

acquisition practices. In addition, vehicle electrifcation

may present a set o unique challenges or eet operators,

requiring a combination o careul planning and targeted

public policy support.

CHAPTER 2.1

Overview

Numerous advantages o commercial and government eet owners should help to

acilitate their adoption o grid-enabled vehicles. However, a number o challenges

will require public policy support in the near term.

T E R

-

-

. T :

1. The high cost of the vehicles themselves,

driven largely by the batteries;

2. the lack of available public charging

infrastructure;

3. the need to enable successful vehicle-

utility interface; and

4. a lack of mainstream consumer accep-

tance of grid-enabled vehicles.

A P O F E

R, -

-

. B , -

q

q, , ,

z .

T -

z. P

, -

q

- . I ,

-

z - -

.

N,

-

GEV. T

. H -

GEV j

. I , -

- -

, GEV

“ ”

- .

W

,

. I ,

z —

- —

. I ,

z

. A

,

. M,

— —

.

I , -

,

,

q

. F , ,

,

-

- (

-f

). I ,

,

.

leet electriication roadmap74 part two: leet challenges



CHAPTER 2.2

Fleet Challenges

In addition to the higher upront costs, GEVs may present challenges to eet

operators. Balancing increased capital spending with operational savings will

require institutional exibility. Meanwhile, addressing battery residual risk and

the impact o clustered charging could require public policy innovation.

F

EV PHEV , -

. T

-

.

W

EV PHEV -

, -

-

. F j U.S.

,

— -

—

GEV.

F ’

q -

. H, -

U S

. A -

-

, PHEV EV .

T

.

F, ’ -

GEV . I -

-

,

. E —

z f.

W

PHEV EV ,

. M ,

GEV q -

.

Tg C

B

. C

, f z

. U,

- - ,

q. A ,

.

Cp Expu v. Opg Exp

T . T

q ’ ,

, . E

. A , ,

, .

B Ru Vu

T, -

. I , . Sf -

PHEV EV

. E

- 70 80

. B

.

F Iuu Iu

E , -

. W L II $2,000 ,

z EV PHEV . L III

q, .

U Ip D Cg Nwk

B EV PHEV

q . I

, f

. U -

.

Mk Pp

P

’ .

E ,

.

0

part two: leet challenges leet electriication roadmap76 leet challenges





EV

. F GEV ICE ,

.

T , - -

.

T

-

,

z

. A z

,

.

S

2004 P 2007 C -

. T 2007 C

30 15 -

40 .10 A

,

.

Eq - - -

. I ,

GEV. T

OEM GEV

10 ORLN,E 2007 TCH SD

S,(2008).

.11 F ,

z -

. H, q -

. T,

. P

,

B W UQM

.12 A

, q

.

Charging Inrastructure

I ,

.

F j , L I

(110) f PHEV EV .

T , z

,

.

B -

- —

.M ,

(,

) L II (220). L II

11 EC, PRTM .

12 UQM T,"UQM T B WC

E PS, ://.q./

_.?=120.

A -

z. I , PHEV -

z 50 -- . T

, PHEV-40 q 8

W 16 W 40

- . T

,

q. I - , PHEV

-- -

q. H,

- PHEV -

- ,

.

Iu D

W ,

. O

,

- - . A

2008, EV q $800 -

$1,000 W. D ,

. I

f. F

, -

C V PHEV

LG C S K.7 T

7 S K,“LG C GM V,” R,O

22,2008.

GM’ B, M,

. T

- GM’

. H,

V LG C

C P 2012. T C P

H M.8

T U.S.

. U

$600-$750 W.9 T

z

OEM

. C

. A 2015, -

. A ,

,

- -

z -

z .

Component Cost

T q -

. O

, , - ’

. W

,

ICE ,

8 SA,“LGC H,

MI,” A.,M 14,2010.

9 EC,PRTM .

FIGURE 2C

Typical Battery Charge Patterns by Primary xEV TypeFIGURE 2D

Battery Cost Reduction Prole

Source: DOE, NREL; PRTM Analysis Source: PRTM Analysis

Uncharged CapacityCharged But Not Used

0 20 40 60 80 100

HEV

PHEV

EV

Charged and Used (Charge Depleting)

Used Frequently in Charge Sustaining

Used Sometimes in Charge S ustaining

per kWh

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

$1,200

2020201920182017201620152014201320122011201020092008

STAGE 1

Limited Capacity

Limited Suppliers

Pilot Volumes

STAGE 2

Over-capacity

Slow Volume Ramp-up

New Market EntrantsTechnical Advances

STAGE 3

Sustainable Industrial Volumes

Consolidated Competitors

Operational ImprovementsContinued Technical Advances




Capital Expenditures vs. Operating Expense

F

. I

,

. T -

. A 80 -

1-5 -

—8.7 —

J 1, 2010.21 I -

,

. T 1-5

.22

B

. C/

q

z ,

q. S

. O

,

. F ,

5 EV

$25,000 $30,000 2015. C

q

.

21 BP C, AFB 2010.

22 Id.

V -

,

q . L

,

-

OEM, . 23

T

-

-

. F , q

’ HEV, PHEV, EV, -

,

. E

PHEV EV -

. I f

-

,

q

ICE .24

G ()

-

, / (

)

.

23 EC,PRTM .

24 EC,PRTM .

—

q—

$2,000 (

),

OEM ’ .13 S

-

L II

.14 U

. I ,

.15 F 2E

z .

S

PHEV EV

GEV . A

- L II $2,000,

$10,000 $15,000

,

10 EV $30,000.

T

-

- .

13 JM,“HC EV:C WV,”

N YT, M16, 2010.

14 Id.

15 S,..,EL,“S ,

,” A,O 25,2010.

F Cgg

L III , DC DC ,

- -

20 30

.16 T L III

50 W ,

24 W

30 , q ( , ’

-

-- ,

’ SOC ).17

C L III -

25 12 ,

$37,500 , -

L II .18 I ,

L III

. T -

.19 H, Q4 2010,

DC DC

. T

’ , -

. I ,

j OEM

.20

16 EC,PRTM .

17 EC,PRTM .

18 EC,PRTM .

19 EC,PRTM .

20 EC,PRTM .

FIGURE 2E

EV Battery Charge Times

VEHICLE BATTERY CAPACITY CHARGING METHOD CHARGING POWER FULL RECHARGE TIME

Passenger Car 24 kWh

Level 1 1.7 kW 14.1 hrs


Level 3 50 kW 0.5 hrs

Class 5 Truck 65 kWh




Class 7 Truck 80 kWh




0

FIGURE 2F

Sample Cashow Impact of Vehicle Leasing vs. Ownership (CapEx vs. OpEx)


-20,000

-10,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

$50,000

Year 6Year 5Year 4Year 3Year 2Year 1Year 0

Own

Lease

Battery Replacement






.29

O -

U D’ M-A

G I C C (MAGICC). A

, -

- PJM -

O

2007 (PJM I

-

z). I

-

--

. A ,

PJM U

D

18 W 1

MW

PJM ,

$7 $10 18-20

-

. T

-

.

I

. F ,

, -

. Y, ,

z

, q

. I -

, -

, , .

29 Id.

F,

’ -

. I

. T q

, ,

q

. T , -

. U,

.

D ,

. G M -

16 W C V

“50 70 ” -

GM’ 8-, 100,000 -

.”30 GM

ABB G, ’

, -

.31

I S 2010, N M C.

S C. J

j z

- .32 N z

, 4R E C.,

-

- L.

30 SqR,“GM S S LVB,”

SA, S22, 2010.

31 PE,“A EV ’ ,” MSNBC.,

S29,2010.

32 C-RK,“N,SJV R-,RB,”

R,S 15,2010

Fleet Inrastructure Issues

W

- f-

,

. C

.

P , ( -

), ,

, , —

.

F ,

70 100 , 12

,

L II -

. T

EV

100 -

q L II

. T

q 1 F 2I. F

’ ,

, q

L II .

F

EV -

q

. T

PHEV , z

. T -

q

q 2 3 F 2I. F q

4

-

L III EV . I ,

HEV PHEV .

A

. F ,

q 1 , q

q 4

. T

f

L II .

F, -

q

. E

z

q . U

—

z— GEV

.

S q -

, , .

Uz

,

, q z -

( f

), z,

. I

.

-

70 80

.

70-80%

FIGURE 2I

Directional Indicator of Charging Infrastructure Costs

Predictable Operation

L o w M

i l e a g e & B a t t e r y C a p a c i t y

H i g h M i l e a g e &

B a t t e r y C a p a c i t y

Unpredictable Operation

1 LOWEST COSTDepot, Home ChargerLevel II Charging Capacity

2 MEDIUM COSTSome Chargers in the FieldPossible Level III Capacity Required

3 MEDIUM COSTSome Chargers in the FieldPossible Level III Capacity Required

4 HIGHEST COSTMost Chargers in the FieldLevel III Capacity Likely




Utility Impact o Dense Charge Networks

T PHEV EV

q

. I ,

. M, -

z z ,

. T ,

,

z -

,

-,

. H, EV

, q -

. I ,

f

. U

.

Generation

S ,

– . I , -

q,

12-20

. I ,

q

-

. T,

—

— z -

. T , -

- ,

-

. I 2007, P N N

L (PNNL)

160 PHEV U

S .33

T , .

M

-. I , PNNL

- . F

,

- ,

. T

EV

PHEV 6:00 6:00. T--

.

33 K-M,M, “IAP-IH

VEU RU.S.PGP1:

TA,”PNN L,J2007.

FIGURE 2J

Stylized Load Shape for 1 Day During Peak Season

Source: Pacic Northwest National Labratory

10am8am6am4am2am 8pm6pm 12am10pm4pm2pm12pm

Fossil Generation

Peaking Plants

Valley Filling

Total Installed Capacity

Renewables & Hydro

Nuclear

Peak Day Load Shape

Seasonal Average

Load Shape

FIGURE 2K

Peak Day PHEV Charging in ECAR, 2020

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratories

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

7/25

0:00

7/25

4:00

7/25

8:00

7/25

12:00

7/25

16:00

7/25

20:00

7/26

0:00

7/26

4:00

7/26

8:00

7/26

12:00

7/26

16:00

7/26

20:00

7/27

0:00

1.4 kW Night

Base

2 kW Night

2 kW Evening

6 kW Evening

6 kW Night

1.4 kW Evening

GW

Analyzing GEV Impact On Power Generation

In 2008, Oak Ridge National Laboratory released a comprehensive simulation analysis of PHEV

charging and its impact on power generation. The analysis was segmented by North American

Electricity Reliability Council (NERC) regions. The analysis assumed that 19.6 million PHEVs would

be on the road in the U.S. by 2020, and modeled the effect of multiple charging scenarios in

different NERC regions. Charging was varied by strength of charge and also time: early evening

or night charging.

Figure 2K presents the results of peak day charging by PHEVs in the East Central Area Reliability

Coordination Agreement (ECAR) region. In this case, unconstrained early evening charging by

PHEVs using a 6 kW charger surpassed the typical peak load. The implication is that in this

instance, the utility would, in fact, need to add new generation capacity to support PHEV

charging. And while this analysis probably represents a kind of worst case scenario—6 kW

vehicle chargers are not the norm for light-duty vehicles today—it highlights the need for careful

planning in managing the interface between utilities and plug-in electric vehicles. Ultimately,

utilities will need levers, including price signals and smart grid technology, to carefully deal withEV and PHEV customers in both eet and personal-use applications.

part two: leet challenges88 leet challenges leet electriication roadmap



FIGURE 2L

PG&E Pilot GEV Rate Plan

T - . I -

, D E (DTE E)

-- GEV

- 7.6 W.34

DTE - 11:00 9:00

M F, . T

- EV PHEV 18.2

W. B ,

DTE’ 12.3 W. (T

M P S

C A 2010.) U, -

.

P G E

GEV. T “E T--U

L E V ”

-

. PG&E’

q -

. D ,

, 28

W.35 O- 5.0

W.

34 DTEE, P-E VR, ://

../C/P/

V/R., N1, 2010.

35 PG&E,EVC R E,

://../////

/., N1, 2010.

DistributionI ,

,

. M -

EV PHEV, . (O

,

-

- ).

H, -

-

. W

GEV , -

. A L II 220

15 3.3

,

U.S. . I ,

. M- -

q 8 W. F -

GEV, 10 W. I

,

( -

-

). I

, .

O E P R

I (EPRI) PHEV

Monday

12 am

12 am

9 pm

7 am

Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

OFF PEAK

Summer: 5.0–5.0¢/kWhWinter: 5.8-6.4¢/kWh

PARTIAL PEAK OFF PEAK

PARTIAL PEAK

PARTIAL PEAK

Summer & Winter: 10.4–10.0¢/kWh

2 pm

5 pm

Summer: May 1–October 31 // Winter: November 1–April 30

PEAK (SUMMER ONLY)

28.4–28.0¢/kWh

Source: PG&E

. 36 TEPRI j PHEV

240 114 314

68 314

- . S

. T

PHEV 240V

68 25VA

. P ,

, -

, —

— q .

M

.37 C -

q

. M,

-

. N, - z

.

O , ()

- -

z f.

Preparing City Governments A PHEV EV -

,

36 AM,“E

,” EPRI(2009).

37 I

,

.

. O PHEV, EV, q

q

. I

q .

L ,

’ ,

q. O ,

q .

I ,

-

. I ,

. D

-

- -

. (T

; ,

-

.)

U, EV PHEV

f

. I ,

-

f.

FIGURE 2M

Neighborhood Transformer Loading

Source: Arindam Maitra, EPRI, Effects of Electrication on the Electricity Grid, 2009

0–100% Rated

100%–120% RatedOver 120%Rated

0

20

40

60

80

100% of Transformers

Transformer Type100kVA75kVA50kVA37kVA25kVA




Market Perception

D

, -

. W

q—

—

. M,

q

,

, -

, .

E

, ,

q

j.

Assessing Operational Cost Savings

F

. S -

. T --

2004 2007,

-

U S 50 ,

$1.88 $2.80/.38

3 8 D OE , AER2009 ,T5.24.

I 2008, , -

. Y

,

-- j 11

18 .39 E 2009,

, ,

j 7 22

.40

B 2010. W

$2.70 ,

,

. T q ,

10

2009,

10 . 41 M ,

-

: z SUV

33.3 13.7 2010

q 2009.42 T j

$2.50/

2008 .

W

z ,

39 EC DOE,EERE;MI.

40 Id.

41 H .,“S2010D:H S S,W

CD C G,” O5, 2010.

42 WSJ O,A M DC, ://.j.//

//2_3022-..

,

— — .

A

.

Maintenance Costs

I

q .

V OEM

,

.43 T

.

F, q

. F , -

40,000 65,000 2000

2005.44 A ,

50,000 . I ,

j ,

. O ,

,

f

. N,

, EV PHEV

.

S,

— ,

z — q

. T

.

Expected Value

A

f.

W

,

. A

,

43 EC,PRTM .

44 BP C,AFB 2010.

EV

.45 A , “ -

4 q

.”46

C -

,

-

. F

.

Shiting Institutional Norms

I EV PHEV

z

. EV

PHEV q q

-

. I ,

j .

I q ,

’

q

.47 M, , -

-

.48 T f:

q

’

. I

, . B

80

, z

.

45 F S,“SA NA

EE T,V B M” (2010).

46 Id.

47 EC,PRTM .

48 EC,PRTM .

FIGURE 2O

Vehicle Mileage at AuctionFIGURE 2N

Oil Prices and HEV Sales, U.S. (Historical)

Source: Manheim ConsultingSource: DOE, EERE

Thousand

40

60

50

80

70

90

100

200520042003200220012000

Minivans

SUVs

IntermediateCars

CompactCars

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

00

20092008200720062005200420032002200120001999

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Average Crude Oil Prices(2008 Dollars)

Thousand HEV Units $/BarrelAnnual US Hybrid

Vehicle Sales




PART THREE

Identiying FleetOpportunities

3.1 OVERVIEW

3.2 MODELING ASSUMPTIONS

3.3 KEY FINDINGS

3.4 CASE STUDIES

3.5 FLEET ADOPTION OF GEVS IN 2015

C CL I C L G CE

T E

M ET

I I

EC MIC C E T IE - C FLEET FLEET E . LIC I E

T I T IE

I E

T I T IE

M I LE T E LET GET L I CLE T L

G

H E 1 H E TI L

I M E T I E

LIC

LIC

EM T T I

ECT

TTE

EHICLE

C T F

E HIL I L E

E

E

I I


I IE

I E

I IE

ILE ELE I LE L E E I L

I E I E

LI

LI

E I

E

E

E I LE

F

E I

L I L E

E

E

I I


I IE

I E

I IE

ILE ELE E E I L

I E I E

LI

LI

E I

E

E

E I LE

F

E I

E

I I


I IE

I E

I IE

ILE ELE



ABSTRACT

Part One o this Roadmap outlined how and why commercial

and government eet owners could represent an important

early market segment or grid-enabled vehicles. Part Two

discussed several challenges that may need to be addressed

through policy support and adjustments to the operational

norms o eet operators. Part Three presents the results o

total cost modeling conducted or eets in various industries

and sectors o the U.S. economy. The analysis was perormed

or HEVs, PHEV-40s, and EV-100s.

The analysis fnds that grid-enabled vehicles can provide

signifcant economic benefts to eet operators. These

benefts will be maximized i GEVs are targeted to eet

applications whose operational attributes acilitate the

most efcient allocation o battery capacity and charging

inrastructure. Optimizing investment in upront costs allows

eet operators to beneft rom the reduced operating costs

o plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and electric vehicles in

the near-term without sacrifcing mission in most cases.

Targeted policy support has an additional positive impact.

CHAPTER 3.1

Overview

The Fleet Electrifcation Roadmap utilizes total liecycle cost modeling to compare

the economic competitiveness o various drivetrain confgurations across eet

segments. Comparisons were acilitated through the use o segment clusters that

aggregate vehicles across industries with similar attributes.

I , ,

- -

,

F E R. T -

q .

T ICE, HEV, PHEV-40,

EV-100. T

z

, -

. C

f EV

PHEV ,

.

T ,

. E

z

. T

DOT z/ .

T :

› f;

› ;

› z ;

› ;

› /;

› ;

›


S t

a t

e & L

o c a

l 2 3 %

4 % F e d

e r a

l

28% Short-HaulDelivery

S a l e s & 1 1 %

S e r v i c e

R e n t a l 1 0 %

Flee ts 5– 14 6 %

1% Taxi

3% Other

3% Utility& Telecom

Buses

Class 8

Class 7

Class 6

Class 5

Class 4

Class 3

Class 1-2

Auto 29%

26%

16%

9%

4%

1%

2%

8%

5% 1 3 %

L o n g - H a u l

D e l i v

e r y

FIGURE 3A

VIO by Industry (2009)FIGURE 3B

VIO by Class (2009)

leet electriication roadmap96 part three: identiying leet opportunities



FIGURE 3C

Vehicle Segments for TCO Analysis

Average Miles per Day 200+160140120100806040200

Medium Utility, Gov — 0.3M

Low Mileage, Med. Predictable

Routing, Longer Park Times

MediumShort-HaulDelivery,Sales,Service

— 0.8M Medium Mileage, Predictable

Routing, Longer Park Times

56

Light Gov. — 1.7M

Low Mileage,

Medium Predictable

Routing,

Longer Park Times

4A

4B

LightSales,Service,Utility,Short-HaulDelivery— 2.6M

Medium Mileage,

Predictable Routing,

Longer Park Times

3A

3B

Gov. Cars — 1.7M

Low Mileage,

Medium Predictable

Routing, Longer

Park Times

Sales, Service, Utility Cars — 0.7M

Medium Mileage,

Medium Predictable

Routing, Longer

Park Times

2 1 Rental — 1.2M

Medium Mileage,

Unpredictable

Routing, Medium

Park Times

10 Taxi — 0.2M

High Mileage,

Unpredictable Routing,

Short Park Times

9

Heavy Utility, Gov. — 0.5M

Low Mileage,

Medium Predictable Routing,

Longer Park Times

Heavy Short-Haul Delivery — 1.4M

Medium Mileage,

Predictable Routing,

Longer Park Times

Heavy, Long-Haul Delivery, Sales,

Service — 2.5M

High Mileage,

Medium Predictable Routing,

Medium Park Times

1178

A-B

C-D

E-F

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

C a r

C o m m e r c i a l V e h i c l e

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY

CASE STUDY


I

, -

. F ,

. I ,

. R

: -

-

,

EV PHEV.

W ,

- q

, ,

. T

F 3C,

.

I -

,

- -

. T : Up V C,

Iuu C (), Pu P,

E P, M C, V

B Ru Vu, .

C 3.2

. C 3.3 -

.

C 3.4 TCO

1, 3, 4, 5. C 3.5

2010 2015.

A ,

-

. H,

-

.

I , -

— PHEV EV—

, - (

11). T z

(

) - -

. O q ,

,

. B ,

-

.

CHAPTER 3.2

Modeling Assumptions

In order to isolate the eects o eet optimization and public policy, multiple

scenarios were analyzed. Standard assumptions regarding the pace o technological

change in the auto industry as well as mainstream assessments o energy prices

were also incorporated.

T -

. A P O R,

q j

-

. F

, -

. I ,

q

-

.

O -

(

) (

). T -

ICE

. T,

. T

-

: Up (Cp) C -

, , ;

Opg C / , -

, ; Ru Vu

( ).

Upront (Capital) Costs

U — — -

. F - ,

-

q

. F, -

/

.

FIGURE 3D

Cost Elements

CATEGORY COST ELEMENTS ICE HEV PHEV-40 EV

Capital

Vehicle (Powertrain exluding Battery)

Battery

Charger (Includes Installation and Software)

Residual Value Known Some Data Untested

OpexFuel/Electricity

Maintenance/Repairs (Includes Oil, Tires, (-) Warranty)

Note: High GVWR Class vehicles have reported signicant increases in maintenance costs in early production

versions of xEVs due to both the nascent state of technology and the learning curves for repair technicians.

Source: PRTM AnalysisHighMedLow

part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap98 overview



,

-

, , IT

q z .

Operating Costs

O

. O

( -

, , ), f

, .

Eg P

E U.S.

D E’ A E O 2010. F

, HEV,

PHEV - ,

(

). F EV PHEV -

, . D

,

, , -

. A P O R,

-

.

B ICE V

U

. I

,

. I ,

. F ,

. ICE

, , ,

, . T

’

(MSRP) ICE -

.

T ICE

10-

(CAGR) 3.7 -

4.7 CAGR.

E -

,

- -

ICE .

E Dv V

T

,

. D

—HEV, PHEV, EV— z

. A ,

z

ICE

. F , PHEV

,

EV , ,

ICE . I , -

ICE q. E

, , - , -

, .

I

—

. T ,

PHEV EV -

,

. T

F 3G.

Cgg Iuu

T -

. O - ,

;

. M, q

—

— q .

T

F 3F. I -

, -

z

. E

FIGURE 3E

Key Components In Scope

Base VehicleCapital Cost

xEV PowertrainComponents

ICE PowertrainComponents

Base Vehicle

» Battery ($/kWh, CD range efficiency)» Single speed transmission costs» Electric motor costs» Other xEV components (inverter, charger, powertrain electronics)

» Engine

» Transmission» Other I CE components (exhaust, fuel, powertrain electronics systems)» Mandated fuel efficiency improvements

» Reference vehicle MSRP minus ICE powertrain components» Factory invoice factor» Fleet volume discounts


FIGURE 3F

Charging Congurations

SINGLE DEPOT REGULAR DELIVERY MULTIPLE SITES COMPANY CAR COMMUTER SALES FORCE

D e s c r i p t i o n

» Single home lot for all

eet vehicles

» Fleet has short, regular,

and dened routes

eliminating need for

extraneous charging

» Fleet has regular,

dened routes

» Fleet has specic dwell

points ideal for topping off

» Fleet has multiple

locations with no

central depot

» Fleet has primary daytime

location

» Fleet is parked overnight

at home

» Fleet has multiple

locations with no central

depot

» Fleet is parked overnight

at home

K e y C h

a l l e n g e s » Ra ng e a nx ie ty » Ch an ge s i n r ou te st ru ct ur e

» Intermittent events

» Charger utilization

vs. investment

» Investment in at-will

employees‘ residence

» Charger utilization vs.investment

» Complexity

» Investment in at-will

employees‘ residence

C h a r a c t e r i z e d

B y » Single large bank of charge

stations at central depot

» Primary bank of charge

stations at central depot

» Extended infrastructure

of public & fast charging

stations

» Multiple public chargers

per location

» Primary bank of charge

stations at primary

daytime lot

» Individual home chargers

at private residences

» Multiple public chargers

per location

» Individual home chargers

at private residences

» Sporadic fast charging

C en tr al C ha rg er D ep ot B an k P ub li c C ha rg er F as t C ha rg er Home Charger Charge-Depleting RangeService Area

FIGURE 3G

Evolution of Vehicle Components

ICE Components+3.7 %10 Year CAGR

-4.7 %10 Year CAGR

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160%

20202019201820172016201520142013201220112010

xEV Components


part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap100 modeling assumptions



I DOE

. N

$2.77 $3.07 -

. A 2008,

30 50 . 1,2 G

,

ICE q

DOE’

—

. S,

q

. (F -

, C 3.3.)

T

,

,

. E

-

- -

. H,

,

C

2020.3

1 DOE,EIA,PN,WRG D

P (O25, 2010)

2 DOE,AER 2009,T5.24

3 S,..,DOE,EIA,EM EI H.R.2454,

ACE SA 2009,

://...//1605/.

Eg Cup R

T f

. F —

HEV PHEV - —

f

(). F EV PHEV

- , f

W (/W).

W ,

-

f

-

EPA . T -

q

, ,

, . I

, -

f

10 . HEV

f 30 ICE

f .

F EV PHEV - ,

. O 2010 2020,

- f

F 3K.

FIGURE 3K

Electric Motor Efciency

CD RANGE EFFICIENCY MI/KWH

Passenger Car 4.0

Class 1-2 3.1

Class 3 2.0

Class 4-5 1.5

Class 6-7 1.2


F EV, /W . T

, EV - . F

PHEV, ,

-

. E f

. T,

PHEV

F 3J, . A -

(-

). PHEV

-

.

M Rp

M -

, ,

, ( ).

T . M

,

. H,

. O j

. R

j 10

22 . T

,

. I , - -

1-2 .

E

ICE

. I

.

E q

. M

ICE

. F 3M -

HEV, PHEV EV -

. (N: EV

, .

T HEV

. D

.)

FIGURE 3J

PHEV Charge-Depleting Range Utility Factor (%)

Sales,Service

Utility Cars

Gov. Cars

Light Sales,Service, Utility,

Short Haul

Light Gov.

MediumShort Haul,

Sales/Service

MediumUtility, Gov.

HeavyShort Haul

HeavyUtility, Gov.

TaxiRental Fleet,Car Sharing

PHEV CD Utility Range Factor

0

20

40

60

80

100%

Source: PRTM AnalysisSource: DOE, EIA, AEO 2010

Gas

Nominal Fuel Price per Gallon

Diesel

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

$4.50

20202019201820172016201520142013201220112010

Residential

Commercial

Industrial

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

$0.14

20202019201820172016201520142013201220112010

Nominal Price per kWh

FIGURE 3H

Retail Fossil Fuel Prices (2010-2020)FIGURE 3I

Retail Electricity Prices (2010-2020)




FIGURE 3L

Maintenance and Repair Costs - ICE VehiclesFIGURE 3N

Vehicle Depreciation Schedule

0

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

$0.70

Year 10Year 9Year 8Year 7Year 6Year 5Year 4Year 3Year 2Year 1

Class 6-7 (2)

Class 4-5 (2)

Class 3 (1)Class 1-2 (1)

Auto (1)

Per Mile

Annual MilesTraveled inIncrementsof 5,000(5K-100K)0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100%

10987654321 Years

of Original Value

Source: (1) Auto Fleet, GE Capital, Utilimarc, and PRTM Analysis (2) Utilimarc and PRTM Analysis Source: PRTM Analysis

Owp M

W

’

,

TCO .4 L

z

q,

q TCO

. T, -

’ q -

. A 6

.

Residual Value

F —

—

4 I , ,

.H,

.

. T

. I

,

. F

,

,

. F ICE ,

, -

q f

. F z -

, ,

, ,

.

E — EV

PHEV—

. F ,

.

V Dp R

T

. I

z

. F ,

10 100,000

100,000 .

T

z

. T

-

. F 3M

ICE

. T

.T -

— —

ICE ’

. I

,

ICE ,

, , . H,

.

T

.

B Dp

T -

. E

— PHEV EV—

’ ,

. I,

’ . H,

( P T).

T PHEV EV

(

’ )

. F ,

GEV

(.. F 3M.) R

. F

,

.

FIGURE 3M

% Improvement over ICE Maintenance & Repair Costs

COST COMPONENT HEV PHEV-40 EV-100

Oil 5% 50% 100%

Scheduled Maintenance 3% 10% 20%

Repairs 4% 15% 30%

Source: GE Capital data and PRTM estimates




CHAPTER 3.3

Key Findings

Based on expected trends in battery and electric drive component costs as well

as mainstream expectations regarding energy costs, electric drive vehicles should

prove highly attractive to eet operators in the coming years.

E

—

( ). I , HEV

- ICE 2012

20,000 . T

HEV

ICE . GEV

2015 2018

$400/W. B

F 3O.

I

HEV PHEV EV,

HEV -

z -

. B -

, HEV

EV PHEV . U,

, PHEV EV

-

.

T

z

. I ,

: pzg GEV wp

u w b ; g-

zg EV b w g

pp.

T q

PHEV EV

-

. F 3P

z .

W ,

z EV

PHEV . F ,

OEM f

z f . L-

W

, z. S

EV PHEV.

F, GEV

, -

GEV

.

T $7,500

GEV

1-2 ; $15,000 3

- ; $20,000

4-5 - ; $25,000

6-7 - . T

2015,

z 2020.

I ,

ICE, HEV,

PHEV-40 EV-100. F

,

PHEV

EV

.

FIGURE 3P

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment – Operations Optimized

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K


Government

Taxi



Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul


Heavy Short Haul


SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 020+



FIGURE 3Q

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment — Operations Optimized + Government Incentives

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K


Government

Taxi



Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul


Heavy Short Haul


SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2020+


FIGURE 3O

Lowest TCO Drivetrain Technology by Year and Segment – Case (No Policy Incentives)

CLASS

Passenger

Class 1-2

Class 3

Class 4-5

Class 6-7

1

2

9

10

3A

4A

3B

4B

5

6

7

8

22K

9K

36K

31K

19K

6K

23K

6K

31K

8K

26K

18K


Government

Taxi



Light Government


Light Government

Medium Short Haul


Heavy Short Haul


SEG. NAME MI/YR 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 020+


part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap106 key indings



FIGURE 3R

Total Cost of Ownership Delta for EV vs. ICE Segment 1 – Sales, Service, Utility (Base Case)

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000-0.01

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

$0.09 Per Mile

“Sweet Spot” Annual Mileage

Annual Miles Driven


Critical Sensitivities Impacting TCO

T -

. I , -

, : , ,

.

B

, EV

2015 30

ICE

j 10

.

G ( )

-

. A 10

( )

30 EV

ICE . A -

- .

A

q

ICE . W f

,

f .

Cb Ip B C G P

O

,

GEV

. T ,

: Pessimistic

Case (2020 B C +15 %, 2010-2020 F C

-15% ) Optimistic Case ( 2020 B C -15%,

2010-2020 F C +15 ). A

, P S

O S

GEV .

Au Dvg D “Sw Sp”

I , ,

TCO

ICE 2018. T

z ,

. A

1 (, , )

F 3R. I ,

6,000 $0.08

EV ICE

2018. F

15,000 ,

EV ICE

.

W -

,

-

. F , -

100

q .

T

.

D

, -

. A ,

.

FIGURE 3U

Optimistic Scenario – Sales, Service, Utility Cars

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

$0.38

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

ICE PHEV 40 EV

Per Mile

TCO Advantage


FIGURE 3S

Base Scenario – Sales, Service, Utility Cars

TCO AdvantageICE

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

$0.38 Per Mile

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

HEV EV TCO AdvantageICE

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

$0.38 Per Mile

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

HEV EV

FIGURE 3T

Pessimistic Scenario – Sales, Service, Utility Cars

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

$0.38

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

ICE PHEV 40 EV

Per Mile

TCO Advantage

part three: identiying leet opportunities108 key indings leet electriication roadmap



CHAPTER 3.4

Case Studies

The ollowing case studies consider vehicle TCO in two cases: a base case and

optimization + policy case. Both cases are based on mainstream, consensus

industry cost data outlined in Chapter 3.2 and energy prices rom the reerence

case in the Department o Energy’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010. The key scenario

attributes are as ollows:

Base Case

T

. A . P

. O .

Optimized + Policy Case

T z +

f . B -

z z . T z +

-

- - .

Focus on Battery Right-Sizing

Due to the high cost of batteries relative to other electric drivetrain costs, battery cost optimization will receive attention from

manufacturers and eet operators alike. Signicant effort is already being dedicated to reducing the material, manufacturing, and

logistics costs of large-format batteries. In addition to these technological improvements, however, practical steps can be taken by

industry participants to minimize cost.

Operators of eet segments that do not fully utilize the maximum available capacity of EV and PHEV batteries will likely work with

battery manufacturers to optimize battery size for their required driving range. For example, in a low mileage segment such as segment

2 (government cars), the daily driving range is less than 40 miles, but available EVs are likely to provide 100-mile range capability. The 60

percent unused battery capacity becomes too expensive to offset through electricity cost savings until battery costs drop below $300/

kWh. However, if this segment were given the option of purchasing an EV with a 60-mile driving range, the vehicle cost savings would

exceed $4,000 in 2015. As a result, an EV could reach ownership cost parity with an ICE or HEV three years sooner than in the base case.

Offering eet specic congurations is commonly done today and would be a key enabler for making the economics of EVs and PHEVs

work for different eet segments sooner.

FIGURE 3V

Government Car TCO Before Right-Sizing

FIGURE 3W

Government Car TCO After Right-Sizing

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

$0.60

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

24 kWh Battery100 Mile CD Range

ICE HEV EV

Per Mile

TCO Advantage

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

14 kWh Battery60 Mile CD Range

0.40

0.42

0.44

0.46

0.48

0.50

0.52

0.54

0.56

0.58

$0.60 Per Mile

20302028202620242022202020182016201420122010

ICE EV TCO Advantage


part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap110 key indings



FIGURE 3X

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership — Base Case

CASE STUDY / SEGMENT 1

Sales, Service, Utility Cars

Segment 1 vehicles—sales, service, and utility automobiles—are typically operated by

single drivers such as sales people, service employees, and utility employees. Their

average daily driving distance is approximately 71 miles and, while they don’t have

fxed routes, they do tend to stay within a consistent proximity to their base. Unlike

segments in which the vehicles are in operation or most o the day, this segment

tends to have longer periods o time when the vehicles are parked (during sales

meetings, service calls, and overnight, or example).

Total Cost o Ownership (Base Case)

D , -

-

. A F

3W, HEV

TCO ICE , -

2011.

A

,

. I EV,

-

$41,000

$33,000 2020 ( -

). A , q

ICE q

$2,000 -

2020

, j,

, .

I

2010 2020

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

0.36

$0.38 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE HEV EVTCO Advantage

VEHICLE CHARACTERISTICS

At 71 miles, the average daily distance traveled or

this segment is conducive to EV-100 use. It is also high

enoughtodrivearelativelyastpaybackonuprontcosts.

For a PHEV-40, the assumed utility actor is 51 percent.

71 mi Average Distance

Segment Travels

EachDay

At approximately six years, the average ownership

duration or this segment would likely require battery

replacement or PHEVs and EVs. The timing o battery

replacement can signifcantly impact TCO.

6 years Average

Ownership

Duration

In 2010, charging inrastructure cost per segment

1 vehicle is $3,800 assuming workplace, home, and

some public charging or EV-100. By 2020, the cost is

expected to all to $2,400.

$3,800Infrastructure

Cost Per

Vehicle

OPERATIONAL SPECIFICATIONS

Home Charging + Roaming

Since these vehicles are oten assigned to employees and can be used or

personal driving in addition to work-related trips, they typically are taken

home by employees at night and are not returned to a central depot. As

a result, the charging inrastructure needed to support this segment is adistributed network, including inrastructure at the employees‘ homes as

well as some public inrastructure to support occassional trips in excess

o the average.

Vehicle Specications

ICE 2010 2020

Base Drivetrain 3.0L SI / 6Spd. Auto 3.0L SI /6 Spd. Auto

Base Engine Cost $1,450 $1,300

Base Transmission Cost $1,200 $1,100

Exhaust System Cost $600 $575

Fuel System Cost $100 $90

Mandated Fuel Efciency Improvements($/% of MPG increase)

$25 $50

Fuel Economy 23 MPG 32 MPG

PHEV-40 2010 2020

Electric Range 40 mi 40 mi

Battery Cost $660 $358

Battery Size 12 kWh 12 kWh

PHEV-40 Battery Life 150,000 150,000

Electric Motor Cost $990 $540

Inverter Cost $1,620 $900

Charger Size 3.3 kW 3.3 kW

On-Board Charger Cost $580 $390


HEV 2010 2020

Battery Cost $1,200 $650

Battery Size 1.5 kWh 1.5 kWh

HEV Battery Life 200,000 mi 200,000 mi



EV-100 2010 2020

Battery Cost $600 /kWh $325 /kWh


EV Battery Life 125,000mi 125,000

CD Range Efciency 4.0 mi/kWh 4.6 mi/kWh



Charger Size 5 kW 5 kW


1-Spd Transmission $400 $380

INFRASTRUCTURE TOPOLOGY

4-Door, 5-Passenger Car

Gross Vehicle Weight:

Up to 6,000 lbs.

Typical Trunk Space:

16 cu. t.

Typical Dimensions:

70" x 190" x 55" (WxLxH)

Typical Passenger Volume:

100 t3

ChargeDepleting

Range

Service Area

Central Charger Depot Ba nk Public Cha rger

Fast Charger Home Charger

part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap112 case studies



-

, ICE

$26,300 2010 $28,000 2020.

A , ICE

40 2020,

$2.57

2010 $4.08 2020. A , -

2016 PHEV-40

ICE . B 2018, -

—

EV PHEV-40 HEV—

TCO EV PHEV-40

HEV.

Operational Variables

W

’ ,

j z

. O

. F 1,

(

). T

-

150,000 . A , /130,000

.

F EV, -

ICE

. A ,

EV 1. H,

.

W EV

125,000 , -

1. S

q ,

q. T

-

(

1). E EV

EV

$0.07 —

. T

EV

ICE

.

Policy Variables

T

$7,500

. W , GEV -

1

. A F 3Y,

z

HEV PHEV-40 2012,

EV 2015.

FIGURE 3Y

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership — Optimized with Incentives

0.15

0.16

0.17

0.18

0.19

0.20

0.21

0.22

0.23

$0.24 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

HEV PHEV 40 EV TCO Advantage

CASE STUDY / SEGMENT 3A

Light Sales, Service, Utility, Short Haul

Segment 3a vehicles—light sales, service, utility, and short-haul trucks—are typically

pooled vehicles operated by sales people, service employees, utility employees, and

short-haul delivery company employees. Their average daily driving distance is 75

miles and they tend to stay within a consistent distance rom the depot at which

they are let overnight. The consistency o the routes varies between applications

within segment 3a. It can be very consistent in segments such as short haul and

highly variable in segments such as utility.



At 75 miles, the average daily distance traveled by this

segmentisconducivetoEV-100use.Itis alsohighenough

to drive a relatively ast payback on upront costs. The

assumed utility actor or PHEV-40s is 48 percent.


Segment Travels

EachDay

At seven years, the average ownership duration

or this segment would likely necessitate battery

replacement. The timing o battery replacement can

have a signifcant impact on TCO.

7 Years Average

Ownership

Duration

The 2010 charging inrastructure cost or segment

3a vehicles is $3,400, assuming predominantly Level

II charging. By 2020, the cost is expected to all to

$2,400 per vehicle.


Cost Per

Vehicle


Central Depot

The vehicles are returned to a central depot at the end o each daywhere they can be charged overnight. The vast ma jority o the charging

requirements or these vehicles are likely to be supported by overnightLevel II charging. Daytime charging away rom the depot is rarely

required as these vehicles will not typically travel urther than the CD

range o an EV-100.

Class 1-2 Truck


6,000–10,000 lbs.

Typical Cargo Volume:

60 t3

Typical Dimensions:

74" x 205" x 80" (WxLxH)Extended Cab Capacity:

5 Passengers

ChargeDepleting

Range

Service Area







T 19,000

f

“ ” . I

, HEV -

2011. F , EV

HEV 2018,

.

B 2010 2018, EV

$8,000 HEV

$1,000. M,

EV $100 2010 2018

HEV

$2,000 .


A 1,

ICE

EV. T

/130,000 . W

EV 125,000 ,

. T

-

. T ,

. B

10 , EV 2018

$0.05

2018 HEV -

$0.04

Policy Variables

W - EV 3

-

,

- . T

, 1-2

,

$7,500 . T $7,500

F 3AA. T

-

PHEV-40 2012 EV 2014.

FIGURE 3AA

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership — Optimized with Incentives

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.15

0.17

0.19

0.21

0.23

0.25

0.27

0.29

0.31

$0.33 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

HEV PHEV 40 EV TCO Advantage

FIGURE 3Z

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership — Base Case

ICE

PHEV 40

HEV

EV

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

$0.40 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

HEV EV TCO Advantage

Vehicle SpecicationsICE 2010 2020

Base Drivetrain 4.3L Gas /2WD Auto 4.3L Gas /2WD Auto






$30 $60


PHEV-40 2010 2020




PHEV-40 Battery Life 150,000 mi 150,000 mi

Electric Motor Cost $1,188 $648

Inverter Cost $1,944 $1,080




HEV 2010 2020






EV-100 2010 2020



EV Battery Life 125,000 mi 125,000 mi





On-Board Charger Cost $1,050 $720





CASE STUDY / SEGMENT 4A

Light Government

Segment 4a vehicles—government light trucks—are typically pooled vehicles

operated by ederal, state, and local government employees. Their average

daily driving pattern consists o a driving distance o 22 miles originating at a

government depot and ollowing a route that is typically highly predictable. A

typical application would be a pickup truck used by department o transportation

employees to travel between dierent road construction sites.


T 6,000

4 q

GEV

ICE. I 2010, EV

$18,000. M,

,

EV $4,500. B

2020, EV

ICE . T

EV -

$11,000 EV

$5,800. I 2022

f

-

EV.


D ,

10

GEV -

. A

, q

z . T


At22miles,theaveragedailydistancetraveledor

thissegmentistechnicallyconducivetoEV-100use;

howeverreaso nable payback periods would require

battery right-sizing.TheutilityactororPHEV-40sis

100percent.


Segment Travels

EachDay

At 10 years, the ownership duration o segment 4a

vehicles would not necessitate battery replacement

based on the daily miles traveled. Battery right-sizing

could change this, however.

10 Years Average

Ownership

Duration

The 2010 cost or charging inrastructure or segment

4a is $3,400, assuming predominantly Level II

charging. By 2020, the cost is expected to all to

$2,400 per vehicle.


Cost Per

Vehicle


FIGURE 3BB

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40EV

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

$0.85 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE HEV TCO Advantage


ICE 2010 2020

Base Drivetrain 4.3L Gas /2WD Auto 4.3L Gas /2WD Auto






$30 $60


PHEV-40 2010 2020




PHEV Battery Life 150,000 150,000






HEV 2010 2020






EV-100 2010 2020








On-Board Charger Cost $1,050 $720


Class 1-2 Truck

Gross Vehicle Weight:6,000–10,000 lbs.


60 t3

Typical Dimensions:

75" x 205" x 80" (WxLxH)Extended Cab Capacity:

5 Passengers

Central DepotSimilar to the commercial segment, these vehicles are returned to a

central depot where they can be charged overnight. The vast majority o

the charging requirements or these vehicles are likely to be supportedby overnight charging. Daytime charging away rom the depot is almost

never required as these vehicles will rarely travel urther than the CDrange will support.




ChargeDepleting

Range

Service Area




q z

. B -

,

100- - .

H, ,

22 . A 66 -

, q -

36 .

I CD

40 ,

60 ,

EV

$10,000 2010,

. A F 3CC,

EV

2015,

. S

EV PHEV-40

EV

ICE .

Policy Variables

N

. H,

P F -

, , .

FIGURE 3CC

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership Optimized for Application

ICEHEV

PHEV 40

EV

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

$0.75 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE EV TCO Advantage

CASE STUDY / SEGMENT 5

Medium Short Haul, Sales & Service

Segment 5 vehicles—medium duty, short haul, sales and service trucks—are used

or hauling heavier loads or a variety o applications. These are typically higher

mileage vehicles with driving distances averaging around 100 miles per day. Most

applications will originate rom a depot and will typically have at least eight hours

o non-operating time at the depot every day. A common application in segment 5

is a delivery vehicle.



At 100 miles, the average daily distance traveled or

this segment is conducive to EV-100 use. It is also high

enough to drive a relatively ast payback on upront

costs. The utilization rate or PHEV-40s is 36 percent.


Segment Travels

EachDay

The 10-year average ownership period o vehicles

in this segment would include at least one battery

replacement based on daily miles traveled.

10 Years Average

Ownership

Duration

The 2010 inrastructure cost or segment 5 vehicles

is $3,700 assuming some access to public charging

is required. By 2020, the cost is expected to all to

$2,200 per vehicle.


Cost Per

Vehicle


Class 4-5 Truck


14,001–19,500 lbs.


320 t3

Typical Dimensions:

90" x 230" x 96" (WxLxH)Standard Cab Capacity:

3 Passengers

CENTRAL DEPOT + PUBLIC CHARGINGDue to the high mileage o many o the vehicles within the segment,

there will be some daytime charging. Due to the high utilization o these

vehicles, ast charging will likely be needed to fll a portion o the daytimecharging needs. Additionally, there may be applications or which Level 2

public charging is used during the day (where the vehicle is parked or asufcient amount o time to "top-o“).Charge

DepletingRange

Service Area







T 30,000

, ,

GEV

z. A

F 3DD, EV

ICE 2015 HEV 2016. M

, -

. I , 2010

EV $47,000

ICE. O 10

-

, EV

2010 $45,000. A,

,

$13,000

EV ICE . H,

, $49,000

q

10 , 300,000 . A

,

EV 2010

ICE

$33,000.

B 2015, EV

ICE,

$47,000 $30,000. T ,

-

,

2015 ( $49,000 $34,000).

A ,

EV

2015 $45,000 $50,000.

O, 2015, ICE EV -

$156,000

.


I , z

. W 5 -

10 /300,000 ,

. H, ,

. T

ICE EV

.

Policy Variables A ,

GEV. T -

, -

.

F 5, $20,000 EV

PHEV-40. A F 3DD,

PHEV-40

ICE HEV 2012 EV

2015.

FIGURE 3EE

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership Optimized with Incentives

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

$0.60 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

ICE TCO AdvantagePHEV 40 EV

FIGURE 3DD

2010-2020 xEV Total Cost of Ownership

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0.60

$0.65 Per Mile

202020182016201420122010

ICE

HEV

PHEV 40

EV

ICE HEV EV TCO Advantage


ICE 2010 2020

Base Drivetrain 6.7L Diesel /Auto 6.7L Diesel /Auto



Exhaust System Cost $2,500 $2,375

Fuel System Cost $2,000 $1,900


$43 $86


PHEV-40 2010 2020


Battery Cost $660 $358Battery Size 12 kWh 12 kWh

PHEV-40 Battery Life 150,000 mi 150,000 mi

Electric Motor Cost $3,713 $2,025


Charger Size 6.6 kW 6.6 kW

On-Board Charger Cost $1,733 $1,584


HEV 2010 2020

Battery Cost 1,440 780





EV-100 2010 2020








Onboard Charger Cost $2,625 $1,800

Single Speed Transmission Cost $1,800 $1,710




CHAPTER 3.5

Fleet Adoption o GEVs in 2015

While competitiveness timerames vary by drivetrain confguration and industry

segment, eet customers in aggregate could contribute substantial sales volumes

to the early GEV industry, helping to achieve economies o scale and drive down

costs or the broader consumer market.

T

.

H,

.

F

EV. F ,

EV,

. T -

, -

. C ,

z :

Lw:M I F O (N

, )

M: O C L B C

Hg: S D C

O P (.. )

C TCO,

GEV

.

B , -

. T

TCO

. C, -

-

TCO .

A

GEV

. H,

z -

, GEV -

. I ,

TCO

. I ,

.

T -

.

A , GEV

S-C

. U -

-

. V

z z-

-. G ,

GEV 2015

. V ,

- ,

GEV 1 2 -

2015. I , GEV

30,000 2015 2015 GEV

5 0,000 .

H, -

2015,

GEV.

I , -

2011 2015,

6 7

- . T

130,000 2015

2015 200,000 GEV.

FIGURE 3FF

2015 GEV Attractiveness – Base Case

S1-Sales, Svc

GEV TCO Benefits vs. ICE/HEV

Greater Switch DifficultyLess Switch Difficulty

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

$25,000

S2-Gov. Car

S9-Taxi

S10-Rental

S3a-C1-2 Sales Trk

S4a-C1-2 Gov. Trk

S3b-C3 Sales, SvcS4b-C3 Gov. Trk

S5-C4-5 Svc TrkS6-C4-5Gov. Trk

S8-C6-7 Gov. Trk

S7-C6-7 Short Haul

HIGH MED LOW

S7-C6-7 Short Haul

-10,000

-5,000

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

$25,000

S1-Sales, Svc

GEV TCO Benefits vs. ICE/HEV

HIGH MED LOW

Less Switch Difficulty

S2-Gov. Car

S9-Taxi

S10-Rental

S3a-C1-2 Sales Trk

S4a-C1-2 Gov. Trk

S6-C4-5Gov. Trk

S8-C6-7Gov. Trk

S5-C4-5 Svc Trk

S3b-C3 Sales, Svc

S4b-C3 Gov. Trk

Greater Switch Difficulty

FIGURE 3GG

2015 GEV Attractiveness – Optimized + Incentives

Note: This analysis did not assume that purchase incentives would be available to government agencies. However, policy changes, such as making all tax credits transferable, would make it

possible for public sector entities to take advantage of incentives and could increase the uptake of GEVs above the levels envisioned by this report.


part three: identiying leet opportunities leet electriication roadmap124 leet adoption o gevs in 2015







M ,

q - (EV PHEV) -

200,000

- .4 T

$7,500,

$5,000 .5

T -

A . P

:

, CO2 -

, A

A . H, -

-

-, -, - .

P T R

EV PHEV -

-

. T

-

ICE -

. M,

. B -

, PHEV EV ’

-

’ CO2 . A ,

q ,

,

.

T -

- - GEV -

, C

$15,000 q

- 3 . T

$20,000 - 4-5

$25,000 - 6-7 .

A 2015,

. T, ,

2015.

B 2016,

z 2020.

4 ARRA,S1141

5 DOE,EERE,AF A V DC,

://...////CA/8161

Policy Recommendation

Create clean renewable energy bonds

or eet vehicle charging inrastructure,

and make municipal and regional transit

authorities eligible or the bonds.

C (CREB)

U S

. CREB

q j

. T

CREB ,

, ’ . T

.

C CREB E T

I A 2005. E

j .

T A R R A

CREB . T -

z $2.4 q -

,

. S,

CREB -

/

,

.

T CREB

10 -

- 25

- - . T

GEV

. I

, CREB

-

q. T CREB

-

,

.


Create tax credits or medium- and

heavy-duty grid-enabled vehicles

deployed in eets with greater than

10 vehicles in operation.

A O 2010,

- - -

14,000 . C

-

D 31, 2005.1 C -

HEV D 31, 2010, -

$3,400. 2 C

60,000 ,

2010.3 S -

.

1 DOE,FE.,FTC H,

://..//_.

2 Id.

3 Id.

Public Policy and the Tax Code

The Electrication Coalition is proposing a broad range o policies to promote the deployment

o HEVs, PHEVs and EVs into eets. Several o those policies involve the creation o tax credits.

Lawmakers’ use o the tax code to promote policy outcomes is not without controversy. Most

pointedly, several observers have suggested that such policies would be more appropriately

designed as grants or other programs subject to appropriations.

However, while it may have been more practical to implement programs similar to those

proposed by the Electrication Coalition through appropriated unds, that may not currently be

the case. Clearly, Congress and the president have the ability to change the l aw at any time. Yet,

provisions in the tax code are generally regarded as more certain than other types o government

incentives. That certainty acilitates adoption o the actions that the policies are i ntended to

promote. Stated dierently, tax credits are more likely to achieve their stated goal than programs

supported by appropriated unds, the availability o which oten uctuates rom year to year.

Accordingly, the tax code has been used to support the energy industry in particular or decades.

Tax incentives have long been available to the oil and gas industry, the renewable power industry,

the appliance industry, and the automotive industry. In short, because businesses making long

term investments are oten unwilling to make them in the absence o nancial certainty, it has

become common practice to use the tax code to support the nation’s energy policy priorities. Use

o the tax code also oers a transparent opportunity to ensure that tax expenditures in support

o dierent vehicle technologies are established based on a neutral metric.

Finally, there is a clear and well developed means to deliver incentives oered through the tax

code to their intended beneciaries. New programs supported by appropriated unds oten

require the development o a new inrastructure to distribute the available unds. That process

can be expensive, take substantial time, and still not achieve intended results. The Department

o Energy’s loan guarantee program, or instance, is a well documented example o a program

established to assist an industry that took years to g et o o the ground and ailed to deliver the

benets Congress made available to the intended beneciaries.

part our: policy recommendations leet electriication roadmap130 leet microsystems




Make tax credits or the purchase

o qualiying grid-enabled vehicles

and related charging inrastructure

transerable.

A E R,

, . A

. U ,

,

’ . S

, ,

.

I , ,

. S

-

EV PHEV .

O -

f

.

T ,

q -

.

M

f -

z z

.

W

,

. I C

,

.


Incentivize the establishment o special

purpose entities to acilitate bulk

purchasing o electric drive vehicles

by eet operators.

I , -

PHEV EV,

,

. A , -

OEM

EV PHEV,

.

H,

—

.

I ,

EV

PHEV . I OEM -

. T

, C

GEV

.

V

z

. T ,

, GEV. F

100 ,

q 20

GEV . F

500 ,

q 30 , 1,000

, q 40

GEV -

.


Extend the existing tax credit or electric

vehicle charging inrastructure through

2018 and expand the range o eligible

costs to include upgrades perormed by

a utility to support eet electrication

and to acility owners or electrical

power distribution equipment upgrades

necessary to operate and monitor

charging inrastructure.

I , q-

GEV

. T

— -

— ( -

). I

-

,

. W -

, ,

,

. M, -

-

. E ,

, , ,

q,

.

E

50 $50,000

q

2010. C

2018. M, C

-

10 -

-

25 - -

F, C

GEV -

j .

10 – 25 vehicles.....................................$125,000

26 –100 vehicles..................................$300,000

100 + vehicles .......................................$600,000


Allow immediate expensing o GEV

purchases and supporting inrastructure

or operators o eets that purchase or

have purchased at least 10 centrally-

charged grid-enabled vehicles in one year

or operate at least 25 centrally-charged

grid-enabled vehicles.

I ( )

-

-- -

. T

,

. T

q z

’ (

10-25 ) ’ -

( 5 ).

T f-

’

’ . F ,

$1,000 -j

$680

. I 10 , ,

’ -j

$785, $105 -

. F ’ , ,

$333 -

10- $270,

$63 . I , $105 -

$63 . 6 F

, , J T Of

,

;

z .

6 A 10% ,5%

35% .

part our: policy recommendations leet electriication roadmap132 leet microsystems



FIGURE 4B

Proposed Maximum Credit Available for Demonstrated Fuel Economy Gains

VEHICLE WEIGHT 20% GAIN 30% GAIN 40% GAIN 50% GAIN

8,500-14,000 lbs n/a $3,000 $4,500 $6,000

14,001–26,000 lbs n/a $3,000 $9,000 $12,000

26,001–33,000 lbs n/a $12,000 $18,000 $24,000

> 33,000 lbs $10,000 $20,000 $24,000 $24,000


Establish a program to guarantee the

residual value o the rst generation o

large-ormat automotive batteries put

into service between 2010 and 2013.

T q

PHEV EV. E

f

q ,

,

,

,

. T, “”

,

.

T , , q

f “” ,

:

- -

,

-

. I , , f -,

,

. B -

60

80 ,

PHEV EV

.

T D E -

-

-

:

1. T -

,

, q

.

2. T q $50 W -

. T

50

-

, .

3. F ,

,

. I ,

,

.

4. T -

. I

, D E -

. T

-

/

.

5. A

D E

.

CHAPTER 4.2

Other Policies

Fleet microsystems represent an important opportunity to accelerate adoption

o GEVs among commercial and government eet operators. Additional policies

benefcial to the broader market could help to reduce the risk o battery

purchases and help accelerate technological development.


Reinstate and extend the tax credit or

medium- and heavy-duty gasolinehybrid electric vehicles that utilize

advanced batteries with energy and

power density equal to or greater

than lithium-ion batteries.

HEV

,

,

, . D ,

z, ’

HEV -

. H

,

, ,

, . Y,

E C’ ,

z -

, - , .

I HEV

-

- .

I 2005, C

- -

. T 20 40

j

’ f. T

, , 2009.

I 2010,

, . T EC

- - ,

, -

GEV ,

. T,

2009

-

S. 2854, S H K (D-WI )

O H(R-UT),

2014 z

- - j

. C -

,

z

q - .

FIGURE 4A

Expired Credit for Demonstrated Fuel Economy Gains

VEHICLE WEIGHT MAX FOR 30% FE INCREASE MAX FOR 40% FE INCREASE MAX FOR 50% FE INCREASE

8,501-14,000 lbs $1,500 $2,250 $3,000

14,001–26,000 lbs $3,000 $4,500 $6,000

> 26,000 lbs $6,000 $9,000 $12,000

part our: policy recommendations leet electriication roadmap134 other policies



U , q-

. T

. T -

. I ,

. T q -

-

. I

,

.

Reinsurance Risk Mitigation

T

-

,

, EC

33

- -

. T q

,

, q

. A

’ ,

.

B

60

80 ,

PHEV EV

.


Increase ederal investment in advanced

battery research and development.

T -

GEV . W

-

,

(R&D)

. C

,

, . B

. 7 B

.

7 EC,PRTM .

A 1973, U.S. R&D

$4 $14

, - j

$8 -

$6 . B 2004,

$5 . D -

R&D ,

A R

R A 2009, -

30

. (S F 4C)

T - -

GEV

. Y

,

, , . N

- -

, ,

,

’ . T I

E A -

2009 E P- H E V

T R

2010 , G G C E RD&D.


Ensure that ederal motor vehicle

regulations do not unnecessarily prohibit

the development and deployment o cost-

eective PHEVs in large trucks.

C

(GVW) 10,000 . T -

-

. A 1 2

.

H, 10,000 GVW

q. I ,

10,000 .,

,

. 1O q

-

. F , -

10 185,000 .

C, z PHEV

. M

- . Dz PHEV

-

, f -

. I, - -

z -z

j , -

-

PHEV .

T q

- - PHEV. T

-

- . A

P T R , PHEV

ICE

. I

, , -

.


Encourage ederal government adoption

o electric drive vehicles.

A , -

,

GEV. E O N. 13423, P

B 2007, 20

2

2005 2015 ( 20 -

). I PHEV

-

PHEV. E O N. 13514, P

O, q

2 2020

q E.O. 13423

2 2020 . I

PHEV q E.O. 13423 .

T

GEV

. B

,

FIGURE 4C

U.S. DOE Spending on Energy Research and Development

Source: Gallagher, K.S. and L.D. Anadon, "DOE Budget Authority for Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Database," Energy Technology Innovation Policy, John F. Kennedy School

of Government, Harvard University, March 22, 2010.

FissionFusionEfficiency

Renewables

Fossil, includingCCT Demo

Hydrogen

Electricity T&D

ARPA-E

RE-ENERGYSE

Billions (2005$)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

$8

2010

2009 ARRA

2008200620042002200019981996199419921990198819861984198219801978

2011 Request

part our: policy recommendations leet electriication roadmap136 other policies





CONCLUSION

Oil dependence ranks among the most pressing national

and economic security threats conronting the United

States today. The importance o oil to the U.S. economy has

necessitated an assertive oreign policy that emphasizes

security o supply in regions o the world rie with violence

and instability. The decline o conventional domestic

petroleum reserves has resulted in increased U.S. oil

imports, expanding the trade defcit and hastening the

export o American wealth abroad. More importantly, the

undamental dynamics driving oil price volatility in recent

years are not expected to signifcantly alter over the long

term. Rapidly expanding oil demand in emerging markets,

constrained growth in low-cost oil supplies, and thin spare

capacity margins will continue to make the market prone

to price shocks in the years to come. Recent history has

repeatedly demonstrated that oil price shocks requently

result in recession, public debt expansion, and high

unemployment or the United States.

B -

,

U S

. A -

U

S

-

. E

, ,

.

A

- A

2010 2011. T

. B -

z , ,

,

q -

j . T,

q.

T

-

- . C

j . H,

q

-

. A ,

-

, .

W -, -

-

j ,

GEV

. P 2011

2015,

-

. I ,

.

C

- -

- .

B ,

q q,

, , z

. T

f

z. P , - -

-

. I ,

-

z -

.

T,

. F

- , -

-

- - - .

T . E

q . A

-

q-

.

F, z

-

- .

T

-

. C

f ,

200,000

-

2015. P -

GEV

-

,

. I ,

.

C

E R, C

A

. A’

, , ,

. I

U S . A -

’ ,

q -

. O

: .

conclusion leet electriication roadmap140



RANK/COMPANY CONTACT OWNED LEASED/MANAGED CARS CLASS 1-2 CLASS3-8 VANS SUVS XUV TOTAL

1AT&T

St. Louis, MOJeromeWebber

100% 7,409 25,300 14,178 24,092 3,249 0 74,228

2United Parcel Service (UPS)

Atlanta, GAMike Hance 100% 0 4,615 66,165 1,853 0 0 72,633

3Verizon

Irving, TX

Jay

Olshefski5 ,920 20, 224 23 ,0 35 1 5, 50 9 64,688

4Comcast Corp.

Philadelphia, PABud Reuter 100% 562 13,509 3,252 22,360 475 0 40,158

5Federal Express Corp.

Memphis, TN

Russell

Musgrove100% ARI 377 24,388 11,932 36,697

6Pfzer, Inc.

New York, NYFred Turco Wheels 100% 30,000 500 500 500 31,500

7Coca-Cola Enterprises

Atlanta, GAAry KayRunyan

100% 10,000 0 9,500 0 0 0 19,500

8Qwest Communications

Glendale, AZRobinKnuckey

90%Bank of America5%; GE Fleet 5%

300 10,000 2,500 6,500 50 0 19,350

9PepsiCo, Inc.Purchase, NY

Pete Silva 92% GE eet 8% 756 13,609 3,647 209 766 0 18,987

10ServiceMaster

Memphis, TN

Steve

Gibson32%

Wheels 35%; PHH

30%; GE Fleet 3%1,278 10,496 4,346 40 316 0 16,476

11Tyco International

Princeton, NJ

Kevin

Reynolds

GE eet 50%;

Wheels 50%2,278 3,932 6,819 2,250 304 14 15,597

12Siemens Shared Services, LLC

Iselin, NJ

Jim

McCarthy1%

Wheels 87%;

ARI 12%5,977 3,099 964 3,395 2,124 0 15,559

13Salvation Army

Alexandria, VABob Jones 400 0 5,000 9,600 0 0 15,000

14State Farm Mutual Auto

Insurance Co. Bloomington, IL

Dick

Malcom94%

Chrysler nancial4%; Toyota nancial

2%

10,952 126 38 3,216 38 6 14,376

15Oldcastle Materials Group

Atlanta, GARon Piccolo 85%

PHH; GE Fleet;Donlen

1,223 8,375 3,017 318 507 0 13,440

16Cox Enterprises

Atlanta, GAMarkLeuenberger

ARI; Ge eet;Wheels

1,352 4,285 1,592 4,502 1,399 0 13,130

17Sears Holding Corp.

Hoffman Estates, IL

Tiffany

Matthews200 0 0 11,200 468 0 11,868

18Quanta Services

Houston, TX

Butch

Christian15% 100 1,800 8,300 500 300 0 11,000

19Xerox Corp.

Rochester, NY

Paula

MorriseyGE eet 100% 450 175 0 9,750 75 0 10,450

20Merck & Co., Inc.

Whitehouse Station, NJScott Lauer

PHH 97%;

Wheels 3%8,558 92 31 1,056 20 233 9,990

21United Technologies Corp. (UTC)

Hartford, CT

Patrick

McGrath5% PHH 95% 2,650 2,425 765 3,276 760 0 9,876

22Sanof-Aventis

Bridgewater, NJSuzenMoye

ARI, GE, PHH,Wheels

9,600 0 0 0 0 0 9,600

23GlaxoSmithKline

Research Triangle Park, NCShirleyCollins

PHH 60%; ARi 40% 1,739 27 21 835 4607 1,976 9,205

24Genuine Parts Company

Atlanta, GAC hr is L an g 5 0%

ARI; Donlen; Mike

Albert; Suntrust3,110 5,789 150 0 0 0 9,049

25Chevron

San Ramon, CAKat Travis 80% ARI; GE Fleet 3,000 5,000 0 500 500 0 9,000

26Aramark Services, Inc.

Philadelphia, PA

Kevin

Fisher30%

GE Fleet 40%;

PHH 20%1,320 2,887 2,220 1,031 1,065 287 8,810

27Otis Elevator

Bloomeld, CT

Phil

SchreiberPHH 100% 2,028 2,500 1,100 3,000 100 0 8,728

RANK/COMPANY CONTACT OWNED LEASED/MANAGED CARS CLASS 1-2 CLASS 3-8 VANS SUVS XUV TOTAL

28Interstate Brands Corp.

Kansas City, MOSteve Long 75% ARI; LeasePlan 400 7,600 238 400 0 0 8,638

29Hewlett-Packard Co.

Anaheim, CA

Jeffrey

Hurrell100% GE Fleet 3,176 18 0 3,778 1,628 0 8,600

30Johnson & Johnson

New Brunswick, NK

Louise

Davis-

Lopez

32% GE Fleet 68% 6,558 60 0 635 0 1,264 8,523

31Novartis Pharmaceuticals

East Hanover, NJ

Lillian

Palmieri

LeasePlan 40%;

PHH 60%4,309 0 0 1,428 2,625 0 8,362

32Asplundh Tree Experts

Willow Grove, PA

Steve

Toeller200 4,000 4,000 90 0 0 8,290

33American Electric Power

Columbus, OH

Wayne

Farley377 3,993 2,419 989 290 0 8,068

34Church o Jesus Christ o

Latter Day Saints

Salt Lake City, UT

Michael

Simms100% 6,048 1,387 0 422 36 122 8,015

35 Dycom Industries, Inc.Palm Beach, FL

Lois Jacobs 8,000

36Advance Auto Parts

Roanoke, VA

Carol

Davies

ARI 75%; GE

20%;

First Fleet 5%

357 5,461 0 173 1,492 0 7,483

37United Rentals

Charlotte, NCCathyCrewson

3%

ARI 59%; PHH

14%;

Penske 6%;

Idealease 16%;

Ryder 2%

31 4,816 2,308 159 99 6 7,419

38Simplex Grinnell

Boca Raton, FL

Janice

BuxtonWheels 100% 7,400

39Johnson Controls

Plymouth, MI

Christy

Coyte

LeasePlan

90%; PHH 10%73 2,194 89 4,797 211 0 7,364

40Ecolab, Inc.

St. Paul, MNGayle Pratt LeasePlan 100% 1,522 2,482 12 3,030 264 0 7,310

41Farmers Insurance Group

Los Angeles, CA

Mark

Walters98% Donlen 2% 5,939 57 0 536 608 13 7,153

42UtiliX Corp.

Kent, WAMike Barry 6 6,900 200 25 0 0 7,131

43ExxonMobil Corp.

Fairfax, VAJudyCornet

100% 2,750 4,150 0 150 50 0 7,100

44ADT Security Services

Boca Raton, FL

Becky

Carrasco7,000

43ExxonMobil Corp.

Fairfax, VA

Judy

Cornet100% 2,750 4,150 0 150 50 0 7,100

44ADT Security Services

Boca Raton, FL

Becky

Carrasco7,000

45Embarq

Overland Park, KS

Kim Povirk 15% GE eet 85% 245 0 0 6,724 0 0 6,969

46Rollins, Inc.

Atlanta, GA

Paul

Youngpeter 1%

Emkay .05%;

Enterprise 0.5%;

Suntrust 95%;

Wheels 3%

667 6,205 9 6 51 0 6,938

47Pacifc Gas & Electric

Concord, CADave Meisel 8 2% 414 2,414 3,542 112 424 0 6,906

48Abbott

Waukegan, IL

Diane

LopezPHH 100% 1,553 72 0 2,356 2,819 0 6,800

49Crop Protection Services (CPS)

Greeley, CO

Christine

Chmiel12% 137 4,741 1,884 12 15 10 6,799

50AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals

Wilmington, DEKim Jamme 100% Wheels 6,200 0 0 400 0 0 6,600

Top 50 Commercial Fleets

Source: Fleet Automotive, 2010 Automotive Fleet Factbook

leet electriication roadmap142 ap pendi x a top 50 commercial leets



MAKE MODEL TYPE DESCRIPTION/CLASS (IF APPLICABLE) BATTERY CAPACITY ELECTRIC MOTOR CAPACITY ELECTRIC DRIVING RANGE TOP SPEED PRICE TARGET INTRO

Audi e-tron EV 2 sports car based on the R8 42.4 kWh 230kW 154 mi 124mph - 1,000 car run with target intro 2012

BAIC C60 EV 4-door sedan - - - - - 2011 China

BMW MegaCity EV 2-door coupe 35 kWh 112kW 100 mi 95 mph - 2013

BYD Auto e6 EV 4 door crossover 48kWh 75kW 186 mi 87 mph - 2010 China 2010 Targeted US Launch

BYD Auto F3DM PHEV 4-door sedan 17 kWh - 60 mi - $22,000 2009 China

Chery Automobile Co. S18 EV 4-door compact 20kWh 40kW 93 mi 75 mph $22,000 Nov 2010 China

Citroën C-ZERO EV 4-door compact 16 kWh 47 kW 130 km 81 mph 35,000 euros Q4 2010 EU

Coda Automotive CODA Sedan EV 4-door, mid-size sedan 34kWh 100kW 90-120 mi 85 mph $45,000 California test eet mid-2010, public delivery fall 2010

DaimlerSmart ED (Electric

Drive)EV 2-door micro car 17kWh 30 kW 84 mi 62 mph - 2012

Fiat 500EV EV Small car - - - - - 2012

Fisker Karma PHEV Luxury 4-door 23kWh 300kW 50 mi 150 mph $88,000 2011

Fisker Nina PHEV Family sedan 20kWh - - - Est. $40,000 2012

Ford C-Max PHEV MPV - - - - - 2012 US

Ford Focus EV 4 door hatchback 23kWh 105kW 100 mi - - 2011 US

General Motors Chevrolet Volt PHEV 4-door hatchback 16kWh 111kW 40 mi 100 mph $40,000 Nov 2010 US

General Motors Opel Ampera PHEV 4-door hatchback 16kWh 111kW 40 mi 100 mph - 2011 EU

Honda EV-N EV 2-door, 4-seater micro car - - - - - 2012

Honda TBD PHEV Mid-size to large vehicle - - - - - 2012

Hyundai Blue On EV 4-door hatchback 16 kWh 49 kW 87 mi 80 mph - Korea second half of 2010, 2012 Globally

Lightning Car Company GT EV 2-door coupe - 300kW 150 mi 125 mph - 2012 UK

Luxgen EV+ EV 7-passenger minivan - 180kW 200 mi (@ 25mph constant) 90mph - Late 2010 Taiwan

Mitsubishi iMiEV EV 4-door hatchback / sub-compact 16 kWh 47 kW 100 mi 81 mph Below $30,000 Private sales in Japan Apr 2010, US 2011

Nissan LEAF EV 5-seater, 4-door hatchback / compact 24 kWh 80kW 100 mi > 90 mph $32,780 US & Asia in eets & limited areas 2010, globally 2012

Peugeot iOn EV 4-door hatchback sub-compact - 47 kW 93 mi - - End of 2010

Renault Fluence ZE EV 4-door sedan 22 kWh 70kW 100 mi 81 mph

"21,300 euros - 26,000 euros (excl.

battery) separate battery lease

from 79 euros per month"

Israel & Europe rst half 2011

Renault Zoe ZE EV Compact coupe - 60kW 100 mi 135 kph - 2012 Europe

REVA NXG EVNamed for "NeXt Generation", two-seater

with a targa roof- - 124 mi 81mph 23,000 euros 2013 Europe and India

REVA NXR EVNamed for "NeXt Reva", four-seat,

three-door hatchback family carLi-ion - 99 mi 65mph 14,995 euros 2012 Europe & India

SAIC Roewe 550 PHEV 4-door sedan Li-ion battery - - - - 2012 China

SAIC Roewe 750 EV 4-door sedan Li-ion battery - - - - 2012 China

Tazzari Zero EV 2-seater - - 88mi - $31,000 Mid- 2010 US

Tesla Motors Roadster EV 2-seater 56 kWh 248 hp 220 mi 125 mph Base price $109,000 plus options Available now

Tesla Motors Model S EV 4-door coupe, 7-seat42 kWh (standard

cong)-

150 mi, 230 mi & 300 mi

(based on battery option)130 mph $57,400 2012 USA & EU

Th!nk City EV City car, 2+2 seating 22kWh - 112 mi 62 mph - "Available in Norway 2012 U.S."

Toyota Prius Plug-in PHEV 4-door hatchback Li-ion batteries - 12.4-18.6 mi - -2010 to release 500 test eet cars in Japan, EU & USA,

Mass production 2012

Volkswagen Golf Blue e-motion EV 4-door hatchback 26.5 kWh 85kW 93 mi. - - 500 vehicle test feet in 2011. Launch in 2013.

Volkswagen E-Up! EV 2-door mini car - 60 kW 130km - - 2013

Volvo C30 EV Two-door, four-seater 24 kWh - 94 mi 81mph - 2011

Wheego LiFe EV Two-passenger mini car 30kWh 45kW 100 mi 65mph $32,995 Q4 2010 US

Available Vehicle Matrix — Passenger Portfolio

leet electriication roadmap144 appendix b available vehicle matrix



MAKE MODEL TYPE DESCRIPTION/CLASS (IF APPLICABLE) BATTERY CAPACITY ELECTRIC MOTOR CAPACITY ELECTRIC DRIVING RANGE TOP SPEED PRICE TARGET INTRO

Boulder Electric

VehiclesTruck EV Class 3 Delivery truck 80kWh 80kW 120 mi 65 mph - Q2 2010 US

Boulder Electric

VehiclesTruck & WUV EV Class 2 van 80 kWh 80kW 200mi 70 mph - Q2 2010 US

Bright Automotive Idea PHEV Class 1-2 van 13kWh n/a 38mi n/a n/a 2013-14 US

DesignLine ECO-Smart I EV Bus (42 Passenger) 261.8kWh 240kW 120 mi. 76 kmph $600-700k more than traditional bus Available Now

EVIMedium Duty (MD)Trucks

& Walk-In (WI) VansEV Class 4, 5, 6 trucks 99 kWh Electric motor 150 kW scalable up to 90 mi. up to 60 mph $120K-$180K Available Now

Electrorides ZeroTruck EV Class 4 truck 50 kWh 100 kW Up to 75 mi. 60 mph $130K Available Now

Ford Transit Connect EV Class 1 Van 28 kWh 98kW 80 mi. 75 mph n/a 2010

IC Bus (Navistar) C E S er ie s P HE V S ch ool R ou te B us & C om me rc ia l B usLi-ion, liquid cooled

battery pack25-80kW Charge-depleting range 40 mi n/a $100K Available Now

Mercedes-Benz Vito E-CELL EV Van 36kWh 70kW 80 mi 50 mph - 2011

Modec Box Van EV Class 3 Truck / Van 52-85kWh 70kW 60-100 mi (depending on battery type) 50 mph - Available Now - EuropeNavistar eStar EV Class 3 Truck / Van 80kWh 70kW 100mi 50mph $149,000 Available Now - US

Optare Solo EV Bus EV Bus 80kWh 120kW 60 mi 56 mph - Accepting orders

Proterra EcoRide BE35 EV Bus (51 passenger) 74kWh 150kW 50 mi 65 mph - Available Now

Renault Kangoo ZE EV Compact commercial van 22 kWh 44kW 100 mi 130 kph (81 mph)20,000 euros (excluding battery)plus battery lease from 79 euros per month

Europe 2011

Sinautec Ultracap Hybrid Bus EV Bus - - 3.5mi 35mph - Available Now

Smith Electric Vehicles Edison EV Class 2 Van or Bus 40kWh 90kW 100 mi 50 mph - Available Now

Smith Electric Vehicles Newton EV Class 4-6 Truck 80kWh 120kW 100 mi 50 mph - Available Now

Available Vehicle Matrix — Commercial Portfolio

leet electriication roadmap146 appendix b available vehicle matrix





1 50 ack no wl ed ge me nt s

Partners & Consultants

Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) is a nonpartisan, not-or-prot organization

committed to reducing America’s dependence on oil and improving U.S. energy security

in order to bolster national security and strengthen the economy. SAFE has an action-

oriented strategy addressing politics and advocacy, business and technology, and media

and public education.

Since 1976, PRTM has created a competitive advantage or its clients by changing the

way companies operate. The rm’s management consultants dene the strategies and

execution required or transormational change, through operational experience across

industry value chains and extensive work within the public sector. PRTM has 19 ofces

worldwide and serves major industry and global public sectors.

The Electrifcation Coalition would like to thank the entire team at GE Capital Fleet

Services and John E. Formisano and Associates or their invaluable contributions to

the Fleet Electrifcation Roadmap. We would also like t o thank Utilimarc, R.L. Polk

and Co., and Automotive Fleet or their assistance in assembling data or this report.



Electrifcation Coalition 111 1 19th Street, NW Suite 406 Washington, DC 20036 TEL 202-461-2360 FAX 202-461-2379 ElectrifcationCoalition.org

The Fleet Electrifcation Roadmap is a comprehensive analysis o the

state o transportation electrifcation in the United States and the next

steps needed to deliver on the potential o grid-enabled vehicles. The

report explores the opportunities and challenges acing electrifcation

o commercial and government eets, identifes economically attractiveopportunities, and outlines a path to driving substantial eet demand or

grid-enabled vehicles between 2010 and 2015.

Documents

Electrification Coalition - Fleet Electrification Roadmap