## Electrification Coalition Roadmap Calls for 75% of Light-Duty Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US to Be Electric by 2040

##### 16 November 2009
 The Electrification Roadmap calls for 75% of light-duty VMT in the US to be electric by 2040. Achieving this will require a minimum of 25% of new light-duty vehicles purchased in the US to be grid-enabled vehicles (GEV) by 2020. Source: Electrification Roadmap. Click to enlarge.

The newly formed Electrification Coalition (earlier post) has released its Electrification Roadmap, a report outlining a vision for the deployment of a fully integrated electric drive network.

The report, prepared in partnership with the organization Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE) and in consultation with PRTM management consultants for market analysis and technical input, proposes completely transforming the US light-duty vehicle fleet into one in which grid-enabled mobility (grid-enabled vehicles, GEV) is the new conventional standard. By 2040, the report proposes, 75% of the light-duty vehicle miles traveled in the US should be electric miles.

As a result, oil consumption in the light-duty fleet would be reduced to just 2.0 mbd, compared to today’s level of 8.6 mbd, and it is conceivable that US oil imports could effectively be reduced to zero.

...In order to reach the goal of 75 percent electric miles by 2040, the US light-duty vehicle market will need to have reached a tipping point by 2020. This is defined as the point at which grid-enabled vehicles represent 25 percent of new LDV purchases. The specific technology—plug-in hybrid electric or pure electric—is not as important as the share that such vehicles represent of the new vehicle portfolio. Different GEV technologies will meet different drivers’ needs, but the concept of electrification cannot move beyond a niche application until at least one-quarter of new vehicle consumers are willing to adopt the technology.

The goal of deploying more than 200 million electric-powered vehicles is ambitious and should not be understated, the report notes. The envisioned change demands synchronized deployment of new vehicles and infrastructure on a massive scale. Altering the existing ground transportation system—which represents more than a century of private investment and government regulation, “requires an exceedingly careful and thorough planning process, to which this report seeks to make a helpful contribution.”

The roadmap report examines the challenges facing electrification, including battery technology and cost, infrastructure financing, regulatory requirements, electric power sector interface, and consumer acceptance issues. The report is intended to provide policymakers and business leaders with a framework for overcoming these challenges in order to drive meaningful reductions in US oil dependence.

In addition to examining the scope of the challenges, the report makes a number of recommendations to address them, including:

• Establish tax credits for installing automotive-grade batteries in stationary applications to help drive scale and contribute to reducing battery cost.

• Establish loan guarantees for retooling automotive assembly lines.

• Modify building codes to promote GEV adoption.

• Promote the inclusion of GEV-related investment in the utility rate base.

• Adjust utility rate structures to facilitate GEV deployment.

• Establish a guaranteed residual value for used large format automotive batteries.

• Review existing regulations on vehicle warranties.

“Electrification ecosystems”. To achieve the proposed deployment of grid-enabled vehicles, an ambitious federal initiative to establish “electrification ecosystems” in a number of American cities will be required, the report says.

In the GEV context, an electrification ecosystem is a community in which each of the elements necessary for the successful deployment of grid-enabled vehicles is deployed nearly simultaneously in high concentrations. By ensuring that vehicles, infrastructure, and the full network of support services and technologies arrive in well-defined markets together, ecosystems will provide an invaluable demonstration of the benefits of integrated electrification architecture.

The report suggests a phased approach, with Phase One ecosystems, incorporating 6 to 8 cities, reaching stock penetration rates of 50,000 to 100,000 vehicles by 2013. This level of deployment would place the US on a path to deploy approximately 700,000 grid-enabled vehicles on the road by 2013, consistent with the national goal of 75% electric VMT by 2040, according to the report.

Phase One of the ecosystem deployment strategy is intended primarily as a proof of concept and data collection exercise. Phase Two is intended to jumpstart the wide-scale deployment of GEVs to the levels needed to achieve the goals of 14 million GEVs on the road by 2020 and more than 120 million GEVs on the road by 2030. Phase two will expand deployment to between 20 and 25 additional cities.

The coalition makes a series of recommendations in support of the Phased Ecosystems approach, including:

Phase One

• Create position of Assistant Secretary for Electric Transportation at the Department of Energy

• Modify plug-in electric drive vehicle tax credits by significantly increasing them for vehicles purchased and registered in Phase One ecosystems.

• Establish tax credits equal to 75% of the cost to construct public charging infrastructure in phase one ecosystems.

• Extend consumer tax credits for home charging equipment.

• Establish tax credits equal to 50% of the costs of the necessary IT upgrades for utilities or power aggregators to sell power to GEVs in phase one ecosystems.

Phase Two

• In phase two, adjust consumer tax credits for GEVs and standardize them across phase one and phase two ecosystems.

• In phase two, adjust tax credits for public charging infrastructure to approximately 50% of the cost

• In phase two, adjust financial support to 20% of the cost for IT upgrades for utilities or power aggregators to sell power to GEVs.

Members of the Electrification Coalition include:

• Timothy E. Conver, Chairman, President & CEO, AeroVironment, Inc.
• Peter L. Corsell, CEO, GridPoint, Inc.
• David W. Crane, President & CEO, NRG Energy, Inc.
• Kevin Czinger, President & CEO, Coda Automotive
• Seifi Ghasemi, Chairman & CEO, Rockwood Holdings, Inc.
• Carlos Ghosn, President & CEO, Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
• Alex A. Molinaroli, Chairman, Johnson Controls-Saft and President, Johnson Controls Power Solutions
• Reuben Munger, Chairman, Bright Automotive, Inc.
• Frederick W. Smith, Chairman, President & CEO, FedEx Corporation
• David P. Vieau, President & CEO, A123 Systems, Inc.

Resources

I'm so tired of every roadmap calling for tax incentives, bonuses, and guarantees for personal transportation. Instead of investing public dollars in private transportation, why not:

1. Charge *more* for private transportation. Want people to switch to EVs? (a) Have gov'ts buy 'em, and (b) tax gasoline much more. That'll move the market.

2. Take that extra taxes, and use it to (a) subsidize the near-term added cost to gov't purchase of these vehicles, and (b) dump more money into mass transit, thereby reducing miles driven (and hence oil demand, GHG emissions, and need to expand roads in the first place).

I'm so tired of every roadmap calling for tax incentives, bonuses, and guarantees for personal transportation. Instead of investing public dollars in private transportation, why not:

1. Charge *more* for private transportation. Want people to switch to EVs? (a) Have gov'ts buy 'em, and (b) tax gasoline much more. That'll move the market.

2. Take that extra taxes, and use it to (a) subsidize the near-term added cost to gov't purchase of these vehicles, and (b) dump more money into mass transit, thereby reducing miles driven (and hence oil demand, GHG emissions, and need to expand roads in the first place).

Some heavy EV hitters back this roadmap, but Stomy makes sense as well.

I wish these guys a lot of luck.

Major changes rerely come without pain to many.

The well being of the majority often hurts the current gainers.

Wall Street dealers and Bankers do not want changes to the current financial structures because they like the current $B going their way. Oil and ethanol lobbies to do want e-vehicles for visible financial reasons. Coal and coal fired energy plants lobbies do not want wind mill turbines and solar power for well known reasons. Why do so many want to continue driving V-8 ICE monsters instead of reasonable size HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs? They have given into the power of PR campaigns and are convinced that they really need a 3 1/2 tonnes gas guzzler to drive to work. This type of acquired addiction to false needs is not easy to cure. Hated taxes (+ selective ban) to cure a bad acquired habit worked with tobacco smoking. Would it work as well with junk food and ICE monsters? Corrections: ..rarely.. instead of ..rerely.. oil.... do not want.... instead of ...do want... Harvey, taxes would probably work great. They do in Europe. They're probably the only thing that really would work. But I think the chances of us collectively deciding to stick a 2, 3 , or$4 a gallon tax on auto fuel in the US are about zero.

I would also agree with stomv. I would like to see more funds go towards public transit. For long distance family trips, a mid-size station wagon with a modest size engine would do the trick over a gigantic SUV. High speed rail would work great too, but even in Europe, where they have great high speed rail, lots of people still use their cars for family trips on the weekends (while it sits in the garage and they take public transit to work during the week).

In Europe today, we have gasoline at e1.20 - 1.30 / liter, and we have not gone electric.
That is nearly $7.50 / US gallon. Instead, we have gone diesel, and smaller car sizes. Thus, many cars get 40-50+ miles/ US gallon. Most people use public transport to go to work because the roads are so congested, rather than preferring it. High speed rail is great if you want to go from one major urban centre to another, but if you want to bring a family on a random jaunt, a car is hard to beat. If you look at the trends from BMW (efficient dynamics) and equivalents from VW and many others, electrification is taking a supporting role to diesel/gasoline, rather than replacing it. We are seeing a "creeping hybridisation" of ICE vehicles as stop/start, AC, steering and other parts of the car "system" are electrified. If you ended up with an ICE car that got 100 mpg, you might not bother going to full electrification, especially if you could run it off either gas or liquid HC fuels. It is surprising that Europe has not chosen to lead in electrification given they have a strong incentive to do so. At$7.50 a gallon for fuel you'd think at least on automaker would introduce an EV by now.

Apparently the use diesel instead of a renewable fuel meets most Euro environmental expectations.

Did everyone miss: "oil consumption in the light-duty fleet would be reduced to just 2.0 mbd (that's millions of barrels per day), compared to today’s level of 8.6 mbd, and it is conceivable that US oil imports could effectively be reduced to zero".
Its critical for the US to get on track to make this happen. The export of billions$to import oil is bleeding the country. The electrification plan must require domestic content of every aspect. Call it protectionism but exporting billions$ to import trinkets from Asia is another thing that's bleeding the US economy.
The electrification plan is feasible in a much shorter time frame, with support like the early NASA space plan.

Why a complete neglect of FCV's? FCV's will be mass-produced by 2015 by many major auto mfg's. H2 produced from renewable energy sources or domestic NG or coal will be just as petroleum-sparing as BEV's. The problem with 75% of LDV's to be BEV's has to do with lithium supply and the public acceptance of BEV's, especially in larger vehicles wherein the cost and weight of the battery pack are still issues. A well-designed FCV will offer the range and rapid fill-up just like an ICE-vehicle, and will have more chance of public acceptance.

" Want people to switch to EVs? (a) Have gov'ts buy 'em, and ... "

Why do that ?

Why not subsize purchases? Let the people get some of their (tax) money back.

If reasonable subsidies do not create enough demand then do not waste money - WAIT until battery technology makes batteries affordable.

Also "In Europe today, we have gasoline at e1.20 - 1.30 / liter, and we have not gone electric."

EVs are not yet the way to effectively reduce oil imports or CO2. They will be soon, but not because we waste money on today's batteries.

I have a question: why is GOVERNMENT always the answer?

What makes these guys telling government to "do something" any different from the cartels that run the oil, banking, and other robber-baron industries?

I have an idea: get government OUT of the market. Stop incentivizing one thing over another and let the market incentivize its damn self.

Remove the taxes, tariffs and other barriers and let the entrepreneurs and innovators do their thing!

I'm tired of everyone saying the government needs to FORCE US to do something or the government has to MAKE IT HAPPEN.

When will people realize that every time government does anything, it does so by pointing a gun at someone and enslaving them. That's what taxes are, people. Forced labor - the very definition of slavery.

Now I'll await the usual garbage attacks from people about how free markets supposedly ruined everything for us and capitalism is to blame for all our ills.

@MacAaron,
Well, you've raised a good question. Government under the heavy influences of Big Business (like Big Oil) has not done much, either. If the consumers are all well-educated and fully comprehend the dire environmental problem and energy security problem that we are having now, then we can expect that they will make the right choices for our collective global benefit. However, sadly, still far too many SUV's and gas-guzzling vehicles are still being sold when the consumers should all be buying high-mpg vehicles. They should all be patriotic and rally behind the flag and the sacrifice of our troops by halting the importation of foreign oil and other unnecessary foreign goods that are bleeding our economy dry.

IMHO, education and activism is the key to shape consumer's decision for the benefit of our environment and our national economy. When the people are fully awared of the stakes involved, then our democratic government will have more incentive to make the right legislation and will be less influenced by Big Business.

Good point, MacAaron...without educating the mass, nothing good will come out of it in a democratic institution.
In a totalitarian system like China, then the government is less influenced by the will of the people, and if their leaders have vision and understanding about the dire global environmental issues, changes will come about much easier. So, all those who are patriotic and environmentalistic will have a lot of activism work to do ahead!

@MacAron

It's a simple economics class problem:
Having the environnement destroyed is a negative externality. The only way for the market to move away from this, is to force it to internalise the cost of the negative externality. Now you can have long debates on how to measure the importance of pollution, how to point out who does what between cars farmers industry.... but the point is somewhere you need a tax because the environnement, although it is absolutely necessary for all of us, does not cost anything, does not sue you if you pollute it etc...
That's where governments are supposed to step in: guided only by the better good of the nation, they put just the right tax so that the (altered, yes) market guides consumers to buy what is socially optimal for them, the others and the environment.
Or the government can be lobbied, representatives can only think about reelection and it all ends up with an awful proposal that is good neither for consumers or the environment....
I was just explaining the theory and why when speaking of the environment, the government has to step in.

Electric Vehicles must be very light in order to have decent range. This is because batteries have much less energy per pound than gasoline.
I have invented a way to make cars safer and lighter at the same time. Please help me promote this idea.

www.safersmallcars.com

Simodul,
Excellent rebuttal. MacAaron, those aren't garbage attacks. How else do you explain the recent recession? Free markets are great, up to a point. Then govt has to step in and bail them out.
Yes, i prefer free market to soviet style economy. But only with restraints (regulations).
Free markets treat the environment as a garbage can. Unfortunately, we actually have to live in that environment.
Big oil is not operating in a free market. They manipulate the market and control govt and get tax breaks and priviledges.
We all know that it's cheaper to continue using ICE's, for the short term. It's the long term that needs to be looked at.

Mahonj, your point about congestion is well taken. As the congestion and sometimes gridlock that is being experienced in Europe and other major population centers increases and spreads throughout the rest of the world, alternatives to the automobile need to be developed for population centers. These alternatives include improved mass transit and telecommuting.

However, I view Europe’s move to diesel as temporary. A Prius-sized BEV would get about 5 miles per kWh, which costs round 15¢ in Europe, while small diesel getting 50 mpg would use up 75¢ worth of fuel for this same 5 miles – a differential of 60¢ for each kWh cycled into and out of a battery. Within several years, I expect batteries to be available for $500 per kWh and be capable of 2,500 deep-discharge cycles, i.e., a cost of 20¢ per kWh -cycle. The net savings of 40¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles totals$2,000 - 4 times the initial battery cost of $500 per kWh of storage capacity. If these savings occurred over a ten-year period, then the ROI on the$500 would be almost 40%! Include the maintenance savings of a BEV over a diesel on brake jobs, tune-ups and oil changes and the ROI becomes even more ridiculous. A $30,000, 100-mile range BEV with$10,000 in batteries pays for itself in about 7 years. Then 3 years later, you replace the batteries for $5,000, change the wiper blades and tires, get a brake job and paint job and you have virtually a new car with a bit more power and range. Oh yeah, a BEV is much cleaner and quieter than a diesel, which I thought would be valued in Europe. I would advise the US government to turn down this plea for further corporate welfare from these captains of industry and let the Europeans bear the brunt of the cost of developing the market for large format automotive batteries. After all, the Europeans are doing a pretty job of supporting the nascent solar and wind industries. Repost to correct math error (40¢ x 2,500 =$1,000 not $2,000). Mahonj, Your point about congestion is well taken. As the congestion and sometimes gridlock that is being experienced in Europe and other major population centers increases and spreads throughout the rest of the world, alternatives to the automobile need to be developed for population centers. These alternatives include improved mass transit and telecommuting. However, I view Europe’s move to diesel as temporary. A Prius-sized BEV would get about 5 miles per kWh, which costs round 15¢ in Europe, while small diesel getting 50 mpg would use up 75¢ worth of fuel for this same 5 miles – a differential of 60¢ for each kWh cycled into and out of a battery. Within several years, I expect batteries to be available for$500 per kWh and be capable of 2,500 deep-discharge cycles, i.e., a cost of 20¢ per kWh -cycle. The net savings of 40¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles totals $1,000 - 2 times the initial battery cost of$500 per kWh of storage capacity.

If these savings occurred over a ten-year period, then the ROI on the $500 would be 15%. Include the maintenance savings of a BEV over a diesel on brake jobs, tune-ups and oil changes and the ROI becomes even more lucrative. In 10 years, a$30,000, 100-mile range BEV with $10,000 in batteries would provide savings of$20,000. At the end of this 10 years, you replace the batteries for $5,000, change the wiper blades and tires, get a brake job and paint job and you have virtually a new car with a bit more power and range. Oh yeah, a BEV is much cleaner and quieter than a diesel, which I thought would be valued in Europe. In the US, with$2.50 gas and 10¢ per kWh electricity, the net savings of 15¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles would be $375, less than the battery cost of$500 per kWh of storage capacity.

I would advise the US government to turn down this plea for further corporate welfare from these captains of industry and let the Europeans bear the brunt of the cost of developing the market for large format automotive batteries. After all, the Europeans are doing a pretty job of supporting the nascent solar and wind industries.

@NorthernPiker

That's a good break down but you missed something; in the US that $2.50 for gas is only what you pay at the pump. Because your government subsidizes the oil industry with numerous tax breaks and government protection programs worth billions of dollars annually[corporate welfare indeed] you are actually paying a lot more for the gas through your income taxes. One study suggests up to$15 is taken out of you pocket for every gallon: http://www.icta.org/doc/Real%20Price%20of%20Gasoline.pdf

And this does not include the blood you lose because of oil wars.

Also it wasn't too long ago that the pump price hit near $5/gallon in the US. If that happens again the net savings of 15¢ per kWh over 2,500 cycles would be$750, more than the battery cost of \$500 per kWh of storage capacity.

EV Guys,

Just wondering, I've worked in both automotive and battery manufacturing, and I must say I am much more concerned with all the chemical pollution that goes into the water making toxic waste from batteries, than the carbon, CO2, CO, etc.. that ICE & oil refineries create. I realize water is ruined to make gas/diesel, but everyone just assumes EV's are somehow environmentally friendly with all the mining, processing, & toxic disposal that the battery industry creates. What gives, water pollution is much harder to clean up than air, when the ground is contaminated, life ceases to exist in those areas. Please explain.

Fair point Jay Dubs but you should be more concerned about CO2 pollution from gasoline. The impact on the planet and our society is far greater.

Battery plants are regulated to treat emissions and not release contaminants into the water table. If they are responsible and conform to legal requirements there should not be a serious concern.

Unless you are making batteries in China. Maybe they only worry when more than 10,000 people start growing a third arm.

The three-armed worker in China is a glory for the Collective State and Party. Not so good for those crushed under the military junta of puppet Burma and Tibet.

@ Carlos Fandango
Where do you think most of these cells will be coming from, the east of course, where environmental regulations are still far off. We were going to produce many gallons of toxic water for every cell produced, and these chemicals can be harsh. Each EV vehicle has thousands of cells. Air is accessible to clean and convert it's gas constituents if it comes to that, our water supply is not.

The comments to this entry are closed.