Prioritizing electric miles over electric vehicles will deliver greater benefits at lower cost
Deepak Rajagopal,Amol Phadke
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab3ab8
IF: 6.7
2019-09-01
Environmental Research Letters
Abstract:Compared with gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles, pure battery electric vehicles (simply, BEVs) are much more energy efficient, make essentially zero contribution to urban air pollution, and hold enormous potential for climate change mitigation [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib1">1</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib2">2</a>]. The climate benefits indeed depend on the greenhouse gas intensity of the electricity source, but we take it as a given that decarbonizing electricity is also a policy priority for jurisdictions serious about EVs. Diffusion of BEVs is therefore key to reducing global crude oil consumption, decarbonizing transportation, and improving urban air quality [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib3">3</a>–<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib5">5</a>].BEV adoption is supported through various types of incentives for vehicle purchase, including income tax credits (e.g. US), vehicle subsidies (e.g. France, China), exemptions from value-added taxes (e.g. Sweden), rebates on annual ownership fees (e.g. Norway), and waivers from CO<sub>2</sub> (e.g. UK) [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib6">6</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib7">7</a>]. Some jurisdictions, including California and China, are implementing policies that require vehicle manufacturers to produce a certain share of zero-emission vehicles or buy credits from others to meet the requirement. Finally, BEVs benefit from free public charging, parking, access to toll roads and high-occupancy-vehicle lanes [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib6">6</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib7">7</a>].While the current policies have increased EV adoption, they do not fully exploit the potential of EVs. One reason is that in spite of incentives amounting to about 25% of the vehicle cost, BEVs still seem costly not only upfront but also on a lifecycle cost (LCC) basis, a plausible explanation for their slow adoption [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib4">4</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib8">8</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib9">9</a>]. For example, the $7500 US federal tax credit alone amounts to a 20%–25% discount on the retail price of popular EVs in the US market today. Even with this level of incentives, at the US average daily vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT), which is 43 km per day [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib10">10</a>, <a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib11">11</a>], the payback to EVs relative to a comparable pure gasoline vehicle is about a decade long. Furthermore, when discounting future savings at 10%, the LCC savings are, in fact, negative (figure <a href="#erlab3ab8f1">1</a>(a)). For BEVs to even just breakeven on a LCC basis requires twice the average daily VKT, which is the 90th percentile of the VKT distribution [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib11">11</a>], and this level of use would still entail a five-year long payback. Of course, these estimates are sensitive to electricity and gasoline prices but it is clear the economics are still unfavorable for most private households [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib12">12</a>]. This implies current adopters differ in their characteristics when compared to rest of the society. Even though battery cost is expected to decline [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib12">12</a>], the larger battery packs required to meet longer driving range expectations could temper the decrease in upfront cost of BEVs. Lastly, without a carbon price, any reduction in gasoline and diesel demand due to a global transition away from fossil fuels would reduce gasoline and diesel prices, increasing the payback period [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib7">7</a>]. This implies a sustained—and potentially even greater—reliance on public subsidies. Recent developments lend some support to this claim. Under current US federal policy, the full $7500 subsidy is available only to the first 200 000 vehicles sold by each automaker. However, efforts are underway to extend the per automaker cap for the full federal subsidy while another effort aims to increase the state subsidy California from $2500 to $4500 per EV [<a class="cite hastip" href="#erlab3ab8bib19">19</a>].Second, under current policies, BEVs compete with plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs), which offer only a fraction of the electric driving range relative to BEVs. PHEVs account for about 50% of all passenger EVs in the United States, and 47 of the 77 distinct models eligible for federal tax credits are PHEVs, which is an implicit subsidy for gasoline or diesel use. (see <a class="webref" href="http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml">www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml</a>)Third, BEV ownership is disproportionately concentrated among high-income households and communities. Data from California's Clean Vehicle Rebate Project suggest that only 6% of the Califor<p>-Abstract Truncated-</p>
environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences