A Business Case of Electric Vehicles For

BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES FOR TRUCK FLEETS
A Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Denver
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
by
Mary Valenta
March 2013
ii
BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHCILES FOR TRUCK FLEETS
Copyright © 2013
Mary T. Valenta
All rights reserved

iv
BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES FOR TRUCK FLEETS
Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research
Submitted to the
Faculty of Argosy University, Denver
College of Business
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Business Administration
by
Mary Valenta
Argosy University
March 2013
Dr. Michelle Post, Ph.D. Education
Dr. Ammon Balaster, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Department: College of Business

v
ABSTRACT
This exploratory case study provides a practical application for truck fleet operators in
making purchase decisions between petroleum, compressed natural gas (CNG), and
electric vehicle (EV) trucks. Using a holistic approach, the study provides processes for
sorting a truck portfolio for EV candidates; calculating greenhouse gas and lifecycle costs
on a net present value basis by fuel type; and preparing a model to analyze the
environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits for petroleum, CNG, and
EV trucks. The researcher tested the processes and model using input from three fleet
truck operators participating in the study. Qualitative analysis included input and risk
assessments by the participants. Quantitative analysis included testing the model for
Class 3 and Class 6 trucks specific to participants’ truck fleet data, costs from
manufacturers and suppliers, and market data. EVs are an environmentally and socially
viable alternative to petroleum and CNG trucks, and economically viable on a cost and
benefits basis for trucks driven less than 100 miles daily, centrally garaged, and replacing
trucks with fuel costs over $0.18 per mile, assuming continuity of federal incentives. EV
trucks are economically viable for risk depending on a fleet operator’s risk tolerance of
grid stability and potential road tax. Leasing EV batteries and charging stations reduces a
fleet operator’s upfront costs and reduces lifecycle costs below that of petroleum or CNG,
provided vehicle-to-grid revenue opportunities are available to the lessor. As technology
and production of EVs expand, future studies should show further improvements for EV
truck comparisons.
Keywords: Alternative fuels, electric trucks, electric vehicles, fleet trucks, greenhouse
gas, lifecycle cost analysis, lithium-ion batteries, risk cost benefit analysis,
triple bottom line, vehicle-to-grid.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to committee chair, Dr.
Michelle Post, and committee member, Dr. Ammon Balaster, for their invaluable support
and guidance in the planning and implementation of this research project. Thank you to
L.G. Chavez and John Bryan for patiently introducing me to the topic, and to the
participant fleet operators for providing insight and data.
I’m thankful for my children’s patience, allowing me the space and time for
researching and writing; and for their best behavior when having to accompany me at
environmental and truck conferences. Mostly, my deepest appreciation to Carson for his
care and understanding, emotional support, and assistance.
All of their contributions of time and resources made this study possible. Thanks
be to God for guidance, protection, and blessings of mind, body, and spirit on this
journey.
vii
DEDICATION
For my children, Evan and Gregory, to help make your world a better place, and with
faith you will continue to do likewise.
A new moon teaches gradualness and deliberation and how one gives birth
to oneself slowly. Patience with small details makes perfect a large work.
(Rumi, 13th century)
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF TABLES …………………………………................................... xii
TABLE OF FIGURES …………………………………................................. xiv
TABLE OF APPENDICES ………………………………….......................... xvi
TABLE OF ACCRONYMS …………………………………......................... xvii
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM …………………………………............. 1

Problem Background ........................................................................................ 7
Fleet Operations …………………………………………………….... 7
Natural Gas …………………………………………………………... 7
Electric Vehicles ……………………………………………………... 8
Greenhouse Gases ……………………………………………………. 9
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................... 10
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 11
Limitations and Delimitations ......……………………………………............ 11
Definitions ……………………………………………………………............ 13
Importance of the Study ………………………………………………............ 17
Summary ……………………………………………………………………... 19
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………... 20

Data Research ………..………………………………………………………. 22
Characteristics of Truck Fleets .…..……...………………………................... 23
Vehicles ……..………………………………………………………... 24
Industries ………………..…………..................................................... 27
Operational Duties …………..………………………………….......... 28
Vehicle Fuels and Technologies……………………………………………… 30
Petroleum …………………………………………………………….. 32
Compressed Natural Gas ……………………………………………... 35
Electric Vehicles ……………………………………………………... 37
Batteries …………………………………………………….... 47
Charging stations ……………………………………………... 51
Electricity generation ………………………………………… 53
Vehicle-to-grid ……………………………………………….. 58
Environmental ………………………………………………………………... 60
Air …………………............................................................................. 60
Land and Water ……………………………………………………..... 65
Regulations Related to Fleet Vehicles ……………………………….. 66
Economics …………………………………………………………................. 67
Lifecycle Cost Analysis ……………………………………................ 68
Capital costs ………………………………………………….. 69
ix
Fuel costs …………………………………………………….. 70

Maintenance costs …………………………………................ 75
Residual value ………………………………………………... 76
Net present value …………………………………………….. 76
Existing Models ….…………………………………………………... 77
Argonne National Laboratory ………...…………………….... 77
Idaho National Laboratory ………………………………….... 78
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Model 1 ………....... 79
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Model 2 ………....... 80
CALSTART E-Truck Task Force …………………................. 81
Center for Sustainable Systems ….…………………………… 82
NAFA ………………………………………………………… 82
The Climate Group …………………………………………… 83
Social ………………………………………………………………................ 84
Safety ……………………………………………………………….... 85
Health and Welfare …………………………………………………... 85
Training ……………………………………………………………..... 87
Risk, Cost, Benefit Analysis ……………………………….……………….... 88
Summary ……………………………………………………………………... 89
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………. 90

Research Design ………..……………………………………………………. 90
Participants ……..……………………………………………………………. 93
Selection ……..……………………………………………………….. 93
Access and relationship ……..………………………………………... 94
Privacy protection ……..……………………………………………... 94
Instruments ……..……………………………………………………………. 94
Fleet Data Request ………………………………………………….... 94
Interviews ……..……………………………………………………… 94
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Template ……..…………...………………... 95
Risk, Cost, Benefit Analysis Model …..…………………………….... 95
Procedures ……..……………………………………………………………... 96
Step 1: Define the Project ……..……………………………………... 98
1a. Define problem statement ………………………………... 98
1b. Define purpose statement ………………………………… 98
1c. Develop hypothesis ………………………………………. 98
1d. Create research questions ………………………………… 98
Step 2: Identify Project Impacts ……..……………………………….. 98
2a. Perform literature review ………………………………… 99
2b. Select fleet operators for participating in case study …….. 100
2c. Identify the environmental risks, costs, and benefits for
EVs, petroleum ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs ……………………. 101
2d. Identify the economic risks, costs, and benefits for EVs,
petroleum ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs …………………………. 102
2e. Identify the social risks, costs, and benefits for EVs,
x
petroleum ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs …………………………. 103

Step 3: Identify Which Impacts Are Economically Relevant ……....... 103
3a. Determine which data are quantifiable and relevant to fleet
operators ……………………………………………………… 103
Step 4: Quantify Relevant Impacts ……..……………………………. 104
4a. Develop participant fleet data request ……………………. 104
4b. Submit data request to participants ………………………. 104
4c. Develop LCA templates in Excel ………………………… 104
4d. Sort and analyze participant fleet data …………………… 104
4e. Obtain manufacturer and supplier costs ………………….. 105
4f. Input relevant data in LCA templates …………………….. 106
Step 5: Value Relevant Effects ……..………………………………... 106
5a. Develop participant interview questions ………………..... 106
5b. Interview participants …………………………………….. 106
5c. Develop risk, cost, benefit model ………………………… 107
5d. Assess risks and benefits …………………………………. 107
Step 6: Discount Cost and Benefit Flows ……………………………. 107
6a. Determine appropriate discount rate ……………………... 107
Step 7: Apply Net Value ……………………………………………... 108
7a. Determine formula for calculating NPV …………………. 108
7b. Apply NPV formula ……………………………………… 109
Step 8: Compute Sensitivity Analysis ………………………………... 109
8a. Modify values for variables within reasonable ranges …… 109
8b. Identify which variables create the greatest change in NPV
by fuel type …………………………………………………… 109
8c. Input data in the risk, cost, and benefits model …………... 110
8d. Assess total risks, costs, and benefits by fuel type ……….. 110
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations ………………………………... 110
Summary ……………………………………………………………………... 112
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ………………….. 114

Research Questions ………………………………………………………….. 114
Presentation of Results ………………………………………………………. 115
Qualitative Data …………………………………………………………….... 116
Overview …………………………………………………………….. 117
Environment …………………………………………………………. 118
Economic ……………………………………………………………. 120
Social ………………………………………………………………… 122
Quantitative Data ……………………………………………………………. 123
Analyses ……………………………………………………………………… 127
Environmental ……………………………………………………….. 129
Environmental risks ………………………………………..… 129
Environmental costs ………………………………………..… 130
Environmental benefits …………………………………….… 132
Economic ………………….…………………………………………. 133
xi
Economic risks ….……………………………………………. 133

Economic costs ….…………………………………………… 134
Economic benefits …………………………………………… 173
Social …………………….…………………………………………... 174
Social risks …………………………………………………… 174
Social costs …………………………………………………… 175
Social benefits ……...………………………………………… 175
Summary Findings …………………..……………………………………….. 176
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………………. 186
Discussion of Findings ……………………………………………………..... 188
Environmental ……………………………………………………….. 190
Environmental risks ………………………………………..… 190
Environmental costs ………………………………………..… 191
Environmental benefits …………………………………….… 192
Economic ………………….…………………………………………. 192
Economic risks ……………………………………………….. 193
Economic costs ….…………………………………………… 194
Economic benefits …………………………………………… 195
Social …………………….…………………………………………... 196
Social risks …………………………………………………… 196
Social costs …………………………………………………… 197
Social benefits ……...………………………………………… 197
Overall Analytical Conclusions ……………………………………………… 198
Environmental ……………………………………………………….. 198
Economic …………………………………………………………….. 198
Social ……………………………………………………………….... 200
Overall Conclusion …………………………………………………... 201
Implications for Professional Practice ……………………………………….. 202
Recommendations for Implementation …………………………………….... 202
Sort for EV Criteria ………………………………………………….. 203
Calculate Greenhouse Gas Costs …………………………………….. 203
Create LCA …………………………………………………………... 203
Analyze Risks, Costs and Benefits …………………………………... 206
Areas for Further Research …………………………………………………... 207
Update for Technology Improvements ………………………………. 207
Verify Use of Excess and Renewable Energy ………………………... 208
Determine Electricity Infrastructure Needs ………………………….. 208
Apply to Additional Truck Types or Specific Fleet Operators ………. 208
Estimate Effects on Federal and State Highway Tax Revenue ……..... 209
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 210

xii
TABLE OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Truck Sales, 2010 and Unit Info, 2002, by GVWR Class …………….. 25
2. Example of Trucks in Each Truck Class …………………………........ 26
3. Top 10 Commercial Truck Fleets, 2011 ………………………………. 27
4. U.S. Petroleum Use by Market Sector and Vehicle Type, 2010 and
2000 …………………………………………………………………... 33
5. EV Comparison by Powertrain Type …………………………………. 39
6. Forecast and Actual EV Units and Related Data ……………………... 40
7. U.S. Sources for Electricity Generation, 2012 and 2003 ……………... 53
8. Numerical Estimates of Global Warming Potentials …………………. 61
9. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors and Uncertainty Ranges by Fuel

Type …………………………………………………………………… 63
10. Data Related to Research Question 1 …………………………………. 101
13. GVWR for Truck Classes ……………………………………………... 116
14. Probability and Severity Ratings for Environmental Risks …………… 119
15. Probability and Severity Ratings for Economic Risks ………………... 121
16. Probability and Severity Ratings for Social Risks …………………..... 122
17. Participants’ Trucks Potentially Eligible for Replacement by EV
Trucks …………………………………………………………………. 123
18. Summary of Participant Fleet Truck Data …………………………….. 126

xiii
19. Environmental Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type …………………… 129
20. NPV of GHG Cost by Fuel Type for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks ……. 131
21. Economic Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type ………………………... 133
22. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Base Case …… 146
23. Effect on NPV lifecycle Costs for Various Scenarios of Class 3 Trucks 149
24. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Best-Case ……. 154
25. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Worst-Case ….. 157
26. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Realistic Case .. 159
27. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Base Case …… 161
28. Effect on NPV lifecycle Costs for Various Scenarios of Class 6 Trucks 164
29. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Best-Case ……. 168
30. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Worst-Case ….. 170
31. LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Realistic Case .. 171
32. Social Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type …………………………….. 175
33. Summary of LCA Cases for Class 3 Truck …………………………… 178
34. Summary of LCA Cases for Class 6 Truck …………………………… 179
35. Environmental Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type ……………... 181
36. Economic Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type …………………... 182
37. Social Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type ………………………. 184
38. Summary of Ratings …………………………………………………... 189

xiv
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Petroleum Use by Market Sector …………………………..................... 2
2. Natural Gas Use by Market Sector ………………………..................... 8
3. CO2 Emissions by Energy Source …………………………………...… 9
4. United Sates Petroleum Production and Transportation Consumption,

1970 to 2035 …………………………………………………………… 18
5. Average Hourly Weekday Electricity Usage ………………………….. 55
6. Projected Uncontrolled Vehicle-Charging Load ………………………. 57
7. Projected Price Controlled Vehicle-Charging Load ………………….... 57
8. Illustration V2G Technology …………………………………………... 58
9. Global Warming Lifecycle Emissions by Energy Source ……………... 63
10. Gasoline and Diesel Historical Retail Cost per Gallon, 2003 to 2012 ... 71
11. Gasoline and Diesel Forecasted Retail Costs per Gallon, 2013 to 2024 . 71
12. CNG Historical Industrial Cost per Thousand Cubic Feet, 2003 to 73
October 2012 …………………………………………………………...
13. CNG Forecasted Industrial Cost per Thousand Cubic Feet, 2013 to 73
2024 …………………..………………………………………………...
14. Electricity Historical Cost per kWh, 2003 to September 2012 ………... 74
15. Electricity Forecasted Cost per kWh, 2013 to 2024 …………………… 74
16. Flow Chart of Processes Used in Testing Hypothesis …………………. 97
17. Model to Sort Participant Fleet Data for EV Criteria ……………….…. 105
18. DOD Limitation on Usable Battery Charging Capacity ……………..… 138
19. Class 3 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow – Base Case ………………..…... 148
xv
20. Class 3 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow – Realistic Case ……………..…. 160
21. Class 6 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow – Base Case ……………………. 163
22. Class 6 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow – Realistic Case ……………….. 173
23. Typical Dispatch Schematic ………………………………………….... 174
24. Class 3 Truck LCA Bar Chart - Realistic Case ....................................... 199
25. Class 6 Truck LCA Bar Chart - Realistic Case ....................................... 199
xvi
TABLE OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
A. Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US ………………………. 226
B. Carbon Emissions by Power Control Area ………………………… 228
C. U.S. Environmental Regulations Affecting Fleet Trucks ………….. 232
D. Top 300 Fleet Operators in the US ………………………………… 234
E. Fleet Data Request …………………………………………………. 244
F. Participant Interview Questions …………………………………..... 245
G. Regional Transmission Organizations Map ……………………….. 252
H. Average Property Tax Rates by State ……………………………… 253
I. Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 Trucks …………. 254
J. Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 6 Trucks …………. 266
K. Summary of Level 2 Charging Stations ……………………………. 278

xvii
TABLE OF ACRONYMS
AC – Alternating current
CAFE – Corporate average fuel economy, as set by NHTSA and monitored by EPA
CBA – Cost benefit analysis
CCS – Carbon capture and storage
CNG – Compressed natural gas
CO2 – Carbon dioxide
DC – Direct current
DOE – United States Department of Energy
DOT – United States Department of Transportation
EERE - US Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
EIA – United States Energy Information Administration
EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency
EV – Electric vehicle
FHWA – United States Federal Highway Administration
GHG – Greenhouse gases
GVW – Gross vehicle weight
GVWR – Gross vehicle weight rating, as set by the United States Federal Highway
Administration
HEV – Hybrid electric vehicle
ICE – Internal combustion engine
ICEV – Internal combustion engine vehicle
kW – Kilowatt
kWh – Kilowatt-hour
xviii
LCA – Lifecycle cost analysis
Li – Lithium
LPG – Liquefied natural gas
MPG – Miles per gallon
NHTSA – United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NPV – Net present value
NREL – National Renewable Energy Laboratory of the United States Department of

Energy
OEM – Original equipment manufacturer
OPEC – Organization for Petroleum Exporting Countries
PHEV – Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
ROI – Return on investment
RPS – Renewable portfolio standards
TBL – Triple bottom line
V2G – Vehicle to grid
VMT – Vehicle miles travelled
VOC – Volatile organic compounds

1
CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM
Petroleum, the primary source of transportation fuel in the United States (US) for
over 100 years, accounted for 99.8% of fuel consumed by highway vehicles in 2012 (U.S.
Department of Transportation [DOT], 2012c). According to Lovins (2011b), negative
economic, environmental, and social impacts from using petroleum are escalating. For
example, foreign sourcing of oil is politically at risk and accounts for approximately
50.0% of the U.S. trade deficit (Electric Drive Transportation Association, 2012a). Oil
prices are volatile, and after tripling from December 2008 at $31 per barrel to December
2012 at $92 per barrel, forecasts predict oil prices to nearly double in real dollars by 2030
or sooner (U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2013a). Petroleum
transportation fuels emit nearly one third of the primary greenhouse gases (GHG) from
fossil fuel combustion in the US (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2012a).
Forecasts show depletion of global supply of viably extractable oil within 50 years (EIA,
2012a; Hughes, Knittel, & Sperling, 2006; Mathew, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
As of 2012, the US comprised only 4.5% of the world’s population and produced
10.3% of global oil supply, yet consumed 22.5% of global oil production (Davis, Diegel,
& Boundy, 2011; EIA, 2012b; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). Although petroleum use per
capita in the US gradually declined 7.3% from 2002 to 2012, petroleum use for trucks
increased 23.4% from 2000 to 2010 (Davis et al., 2012; EIA, 2011). Figure 1 illustrates
U.S. petroleum use by market sector and type of petroleum.

2
13,000
12,000
11,000
Motor Gasoline
10,000
9,000 Distillate Fuel Oil
8,000
7,000 Residual Fuel Oil
6,000 LPG
5,000
4,000 Jet Fuel
3,000 Other
2,000
1,000
0
Transportation Industrial Commercial Residential Electric Power
Figure 1. Petroleum use by market sector in 1,000 barrels per day, adopted from EIA,
2012b. Motor gasoline comprises over 45.0% of total U.S. petroleum use.
Of the approximately 250 million highway vehicles in the US, over 51 million are
trucks, of which commercial fleets operate 2 million and government another 2 million
(Davis et al., 2012; DOT, 2012a; DOT, 2012b). Medium- and heavy-duty trucks achieve
lower gas mileage and average more miles driven than cars, thus consuming more
petroleum per unit (Davis et al., 2012). Consequently, trucks use more petroleum and
emit greater amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary GHG, per unit than cars.
Furthermore, heavy-duty trucks and buses are responsible for approximately 33.0% of
nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions, another GHG, and 25.0% of particle matter emissions, an
air pollutant (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy [EERE], 2010b). Another significant source of GHG is methane, primarily from
use of natural gas (EERE, 2010b; Lyden, 2012; Salisbury & Yuhnke, 2011).
In several surveys, fleet managers stressed the importance of reducing costs for
fuel and maintenance; reducing petroleum use due to foreign sourcing, volatile pricing,
and GHG emissions; and implementing green initiatives (Antich, 2012; Kar, 2011;
3
Kilcarr, 2010; Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). However, fleet managers were
apprehensive over electric vehicles (EVs) due to lack of information and high costs,
although they expect future costs to decline. Fleet managers also noted the magnitude of
EV infrastructure build-out and leasing opportunities. In a survey of electric utilities, the
consensus estimated EVs to comprise 7.0% of the electric load by 2025, which
approximates 65 million EV units (Roush, 2012).
Federal and state policies provide incentives to increase the use of alternative
fuels and alleviate reliance on oil (Hidrue, Parsons, Kempton, & Gardner, 2011).
Alternative fuels produced in the US primarily include natural gas, propane, biofuels,
hydrogen, and electric power (EPA, 2012a). According to the EPA (2012a), using
domestically produced fuel is better for the U.S. economy and energy security. In
addition, increased demand for alternative fuel decreases the demand for and cost of
imported oil.
Each type of motor transportation fuel has various environmental, economic, and
social issues. Environmental issues relate to damage while extracting raw materials;
from transporting, processing, and distributing fuel; and in consuming fuel (EPA, 2012d;
Gaines, Stodolsky, Cunca, & Eberhardt, 1998). Depleting limited natural resources
without leaving adequate supplies for future generations is not sustainable (Venkatarama
& Gartner, 2011). Oil spills on land and water during transportation leak into
groundwater, wreaking havoc on the environment and costing billions of dollars in
cleanup (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Disposing of certain materials, such as from batteries or
air conditioning units, is potentially toxic to the environment if not handled properly
(EPA, 2012d).
4
Economic issues relate to sourcing and distributing fuel; obtaining specialized
materials; manufacturing new vehicle types, or refurbishing existing vehicles; operating
vehicles; maintaining vehicles; and disposing of vehicles and certain materials (NAFA,
2012; Simpson, 2006). External costs include building new infrastructure for alternative
fuel transmission and distribution; environmental clean-up; inequity in sharing common
pool resources of global oil supply; and protecting political security related to sourcing
fuel (Spitzley, Grande, Gruhl, Keoleian, & Bean, 2004). Opportunity costs occur from
resources used in generating transportation fuel rather than for other viable purposes
(NAFA, 2012).
Social issues relate to the safety, health, and welfare of people affected by
sourcing, processing, storing, or using fuels (EERE, 2010b). The reliability, ease of
operating, and performance of vehicles and fuels are important to drivers and operators
(Kar, 2011). Training is critical for new technology and compliance with corporate
policies (McMorrin, Anderson, Featherstone, & Watson, 2012).
Many of the environmental, economic, and social issues related to oil and
alternative fuels are not definitive. Environmental debates occur over the impact from
GHG and pollutants in water (Dodder, Yelverton, & Felgenhauer, 2011). Economic
debates cover the billions of dollars spent on U.S. military in oil producing countries for
energy security (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Social debates include safety issues for each
fuel and sourcing of raw materials (Crist, 2012). Quantifying environmental and social
damages is debatable (Lovins & Datta, 2006). The viability of new technologies and
innovation is also debatable (Lyden, 2012).

5
Global demand for oil is increasing with population growth and development in
developing countries while global supply of oil is diminishing with use (Lovins & Datta,
2006). Regardless of debatable environmental, economic, and social issues, replacement
of oil must occur, preferably in a gradual manner before supplies are no longer viably
extractable. Incorporating the use of alternative transportation fuels and vehicles
diversifies the overall negative environmental, economic, and social issues resulting from
petroleum-based transportation fuels, such as gasoline and diesel. Adapting to
alternatives early promotes future research and development for continued improvements
in alternative fuels.
The varying environmental, economic, and social issues for each fuel type means
that no one specific transportation fuel may fit all the needs of a fleet operator (Lyden,
2012). A prudent energy management strategy for corporate fleets includes diversifying
transportation fuel types by optimizing each viable fuel for environmental, economic, and
social effects. In 2011, President Obama formed the National Clean Fleets Partnership
that challenges fleet operators to find alternatives for fossil fuels powering fleet vehicles
(The White House, 2011).
Continued research and development improves existing fuels and creates new
forms of transportation fuels (Lyden, 2012). However, fleet operators must consider
what fuels are commercially viable now. As gas prices increase and the U.S. economy
improves, fleet operators will likely replace older vehicles with new vehicles that achieve
better mileage (Knittel & Sandler, 2010). Alternatively, fleet operators may convert
existing vehicles to use an alternative fuel.

6
This study profiles fleet operating conditions favorable for electric trucks and
vans up to weight Class 7, as defined by the DOT. EVs do not emit GHG directly and
allow for increased use of renewable energy sources through energy storage in batteries
(Lund & Kempton, 2008). Battery technology for EVs has improved to where EVs
provide similar reliability and performance for propulsion as internal combustion engine
(ICE) vehicles (ICEVs), yet also provide an energy source for ancillary and auxiliary
systems (EERE, 2012a).
Demand for electricity increases with the growth of EV use. However, fleet EVs
garaged in a central location and plugged into the electric power grid (grid) when not
operating also provide a means of energy storage and grid stabilization through additional
vehicle-to-grid (V2G) technology (Kempton & Tomic, 2004). For example, multiplying
the 2 million commercial fleet trucks and vans in the US by an average battery capacity
of approximately137 kilowatt (kW)-hours (kWh) per Appendix A, Summary of EV
Trucks Available in the US, theoretically could supply enough energy for average use
within the state of Colorado for nearly two days (DOT, 2012b; EIA, 2012f).
As wind and solar infrastructure builds out and use of these renewable energy
sources increases, energy from these intermittent sources are stored in EV batteries for
use when needed (Lund & Kempton, 2008). Programs charge batteries during off-peak
demand periods. Conversely, the grid may draw energy from an EV battery equipped
with a specialized inverter up to a programmed amount as needed during peak demand
times and in constant small increments as grid frequency, or supply and demand,
continuously shift. EV batteries may supplement or replace expensive continuously

7
running generators by providing quick access to power for grid regulation, peak shaving,
and back-up power.
Problem Background
Fleet Operations
While fleet managers expect fuel prices to remain high, the challenge is managing
the uncertainty of future costs with little or no capital resources (Antich, 2012). Despite
the current slow economy, fleet operators are strongly reviewing sustainability initiatives
such as alternative fuels and EVs. Still, analytic models on green initiatives must support
corporate capital spending regardless of government incentives or market branding (Van
Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
Fleet operators park nearly half of the fleet trucks in the US in a central corporate
location when not in use (Davis et al., 2012). Fleet operators drive approximately 68.0%
of fleet trucks less than 50 miles per day and 77.0% drive less than 100 miles per day.
Conversely, fleet drivers of cars and light-duty trucks generally do not centrally park
these vehicles when not in use and do not drive them in excess of 100 miles per day.
Thus, fleet trucks may provide greater consolidated energy for V2G opportunities.
Natural Gas
Figure 2 illustrates natural gas use by market sector with vehicle fuel shown on
the left scale and all other market sectors on the right scale. From 2002 to 2011, the use
of natural gas increased 120.0% for vehicle fuel and 34.0% for electric power, while all
other market sectors were stable or declined. Compressed natural gas (CNG) is the
primary form used for vehicle fuel (Lyden, 2012).

8
Vehicle fuel Other fuels

35 10,000
9,000
30
8,000 Vehicle fuel
25 7,000
6,000 Industrial
20
5,000 Electric
15 4,000 Power
10 3,000 Residential
2,000
5
1,000
0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Figure 2. Natural gas use by market sector in billion cubic feet, adopted from EIA,
2012b.
Electric Vehicles
Auto manufacturers in the US first created EVs in the late 1890s (Bellis, 2012).
The Electric Carriage and Wagon Company of Philadelphia built the first EV fleet of
taxis in New York City in 1897. However, EVs were then limited in power and range.
Engineering of an ICE resolved these issues. The discovery of Texas crude oil and
invention of an electric starter further advanced the popularity of ICEVs. Consequently,
U.S. auto manufacturers primarily produced ICEVs for the next 100 years.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, research and development on EV technologies
attempted to compete with ICEVs to reduce air pollution and foreign oil sourcing, but
could not achieve market traction (Bellis, 2012). Current technology for hybrids and EVs
are more powerful and less costly than the earlier EV models. Several U. S. auto and
truck manufacturers now produce EVs as an alternative to ICEVs. See Appendix A,
Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US.
The environmental impact of EVs depends on the raw material processed in
generating electricity used for charging EVs (EERE, 2012c; Greene & Plotkin, 2011). In
9
the US, the primary generation of electricity from coal negatively affects the environment
(EIA, 2012b). Renewable energy sources of wind and solar grew from less than 1.0% in
2007 to 4.0% of total electricity produced as of March 2012 (EIA, 2012b). Lack of
transmission and distribution infrastructure, as well as storage capability, currently limit
growth of wind and solar (Dehamna & Bloom, 2011).
Greenhouse Gases
CO2 is the primary GHG responsible for climate change (EIA, 2012b). Although
CO2 emissions increased 19.5% from 1990 to 2007, they have subsequently decreased
9.1% with the decline in consumption of coal, motor gasoline, and other petroleum uses
as illustrated in Figure 3. However, CO2 emissions from natural gas are increasing as use
of natural gas increases. Natural gas emits less CO2 and volatile organic compounds
(VOC) from a power plant than it does from a vehicle (Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.).
6,000
5,000
4,000 Motor gas
3,000 Petro other
2,000 Natural gas

Coal
1,000
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Estimated
Figure 3. CO2 emissions by energy source in million metric tons, adapted from EIA
(2012h). The basis for the 2012 forecast is the actual year-to-date data through
September 2012 compared to year-to-date September 2011 and totals for 2011.
Through September 2012, motor gasoline caused 21.2% of CO2 emissions in the
US, coal used in electricity generation caused 28.8%, and natural gas used as
transportation fuel and in electricity generation caused 10.8% (EIA, 2012h). In the first
three quarters of 2012 compared to the same period of 2011, emissions from coal
10
decreased 14.3%, natural gas increased 4.2%, motor gasoline decreased 0.1%, and
petroleum used other than motor gasoline decreased 3.8%.
Purpose of the Study
Adequate research to model conditions for viability of EVs for truck fleet
operations did not previously exist. Recent innovations in EV technology have added to
previous research. Although V2G appears vital in making EVs a viable alternative on a
large scale, empirical evidence is lacking on an operational scale. This exploratory study
compares the environmental, economic, and social impact of EV trucks to petroleum and
CNG fueled trucks in fleet operations.
The purpose of the study is to provide a practical and immediate application for
truck fleet operators to use in making EV truck purchase decisions. Profiling vehicle use
allows fleet operators to determine where and when EVs are an optimal choice within
fleet operations. Gathering data specific to a fleet for complete and accurate analysis of
net present value of lifecycle costs and GHG in a Microsoft Excel template provides cost
components. Analyzing the risks, costs, and benefits of the environmental, economic,
and social elements in the study offers a holistic view in this decision-making.
This exploratory study:
 Profiles relevant variables for vehicle use in purchase decision-making.
 Provides net present values (NPV) lifecycle costs for vehicle acquisitions,
operations, and disposals.
 Provides an estimated cost for GHG by vehicle and fuel type.
 Proposes how EVs support federal and state carbon emissions and renewable
energy targets.
11
 Addresses how V2G opportunities mitigate EV costs.
 Provides fleet operators with a model to select new vehicle types.
Research Questions
This holistic study analyzes the risks, costs, and benefits of alternatives in
decision-making. Lifecycle cost analyses (LCA) include all costs from acquisition,
operations, and disposal. Holistic management considers all stakeholders for
environmental, economic, and social issues (Savory, 1999). This study addresses both
the quantitative and qualitative approach to issues.
Research questions addressed in this study are as follows:
1. What are the environmental risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to
fossil-fueled trucks?
2. What are the economic risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to fossil-
fueled trucks?
3. What are the social risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to fossil-
fueled trucks?
The hypothesis of this study is that EVs are an environmentally, economically,
and socially viable alternative to ICEVs for commercial fleets of trucks and vans. The
null hypothesis is that EVs are not an environmentally, economically, and socially viable
solution for commercial fleets of trucks and vans.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study is primarily an exploratory business analysis of current technology of
EVs and ICEVs fueled by petroleum or CNG for commercial fleets of trucks and vans in
the US. The risk, cost, and benefits analysis cover environmental, economic, and social
12
issues. The analysis relies on data primarily from federal publications and private fleet
records. Unfortunately, some of the latest informative vehicle data was from 2002 when
the U.S. Census Bureau canceled its Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey report. The
researcher considers data from the final report for descriptive, historical, and proportional
informative purposes, but does not include the data in this study’s calculations due to its
age.
The study does not explore engineering concepts or scientific issues and
variances. Analyses do not include energy intensities of differing fuels. The study does
not consider technology not yet commercially available. The study assumes GHG are
unhealthy for people and the environment, yet does not debate the effects of climate
change in-depth. The study analyzes EVs for their ability to reduce GHG; however, it
does not address other changes in vehicle activity for reducing GHG, such as decreasing
vehicle miles travelled (VMT) or driver behavior training.
The study does not include hedging fuel costs due to fleet operators’ varied
conditions, organizational specifics, risk management policies, pricing volatility, and
their short-term nature. The study’s lifecycle cost template does not include fields for
revenue, costs, or cost reductions from V2G services; changes in highway taxes, rebates,
or cap and trade; or other miscellaneous fees due to variations and unknown future
estimates of these variables. Data in the study primarily reflect battery-operated EVs and
assume similar results for plug-in hybrid EVs (PHEVs) or fuel cell EVs. Other
alternative fuels such as biofuels or hydrogen are potentially viable for fleet vehicles, but
are not included in this analysis due to supply or technology limitations. The study
assumes petroleum was at peak extraction, increasing the likelihood of future price
13
increases for gasoline and diesel fuel. Costs per mile include four decimals in this study
for specific comparison.
Other U.S. markets not considered in this study include the approximately
450,000 school buses and 72,000 city transit buses, of which 31.0% use alternative fuels
(DOT, 2012d; Laughlin, 2004). The Federal Government operates 112,000 cars and
547,000 trucks and buses, of which the U.S. Postal Service operates 37.0%, civilian
agencies operate 34.0%, and military agencies operate 29.0% (Davis et al., 2011).
Civilian agencies operating the most trucks are the departments of homeland security,
agriculture, justice, interior, and energy. Although the analysis considers the U.S. market
only, impact on global markets is potentially significant. Developing countries,
particularly India and China, could benefit from ancillary services provided by EV
batteries (Crist, 2012).
Definitions
Alternative fuel –
For transportation applications, includes: methanol; denatured ethanol, and other

alcohols; fuel mixtures containing 85.0% or more by volume of methanol,
denatured ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural
gas; liquefied petroleum gas (propane); hydrogen; coal-derived liquid fuels;
fuels (other than alcohol) derived from biological materials (biofuels such as soy
diesel fuel); and electricity. Excludes alcohol or other blended portions of
primarily petroleum-based fuels used as oxygenates or extenders. (Davis et al.,
2011, p. G-1)
Biofuels – Produced from vegetable oils, animal fats, yellow grease, or decayed plants or
wood and blended with gasoline or diesel (EPA, 2012a; Lyden, 2012). Popular
varieties include E-85 and biodiesel.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – Technology to capture carbon dioxide emissions
from electricity generation and bury underground (Jaramillo, 2007).

14
Carbon dioxide (CO2) –
A colorless, odorless, nonpoisonous gas that is a normal part of Earth's

atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a product of fossil-fuel combustion as well as
other processes. It is considered a greenhouse gas as it traps heat (infrared
energy) radiated by the Earth into the atmosphere and thereby contributes to the
potential for global warming. The global warming potential of other greenhouse
gases is measured in relation to that of carbon dioxide, which by international
scientific convention is assigned a value of one. (EIA, 2012h, p. 188)
Climate change – “A change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to
human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is
in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods”
(United Nations, 1992, p. 4).
Compressed natural gas (CNG) – A natural gas “consisting primarily of methane, that
is compressed to allow more energy to fit into a smaller fuel tank” (Johnson, 2010,
p. 32).
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) – A technique designed to determine the feasibility of a
project or plan by quantifying its costs and benefits (Investor Words, 2012).
Crude oil – A mixture of hydrocarbons of natural origin of variable density and viscosity;
includes separator liquids recovered in the refining process (Waldron et al., 2006).
Electric energy = Power multiplied by time (e.g., kWh = kW * 1 hr).
Electric power grid (grid) – Electric power network of transmission and distribution
lines operated by a control center to transports electricity from energy suppliers to
electricity consumers (Energydefinitions, 2012). There are three large
interconnected systems to transfer electricity throughout the US. Electricity
industry standards ensure operations coordination and efficiency (EIA, 2012g).

15
Electric vehicle (EV) – Battery operated vehicle than runs only on electricity and
charged from plugging into the grid.
Fleet – A group, or groups, of on-road motor vehicles operated by an organization,
regardless if vehicles are owned or leased.
Fleet trucks – Trucks in a fleet.
Greenhouse gases (GHG) – Gases emitted by combustion of fossil fuels that trap radiant
energy within the Earth’s atmosphere. These include carbon dioxide (CO2),
nitrous oxide, methane, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur
hexafluoride, and water vapor (Energydefinitions, 2012). In 2009, the EPA
deemed GHG the primary driver of climate change and increases in ground-level
ozone pollution.
Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) – A vehicle powered by an electric motor for low speeds
and short distances and by an internal combustion engine for high speeds, long
distances, and greater power needs (Ford Motor Company, 2012). A battery
charged by the engine and regenerative braking powers the electric motor.
Internal combustion engine (ICE) – Traditional motor vehicle engine runs on gasoline,
diesel, or alternative fuel for propulsion.
Kilowatt (kW) – Unit of power = 1,000 watts. See Watt.
Kilowatt-hour (kWh) – Unit of energy; the amount of electric energy produced or
consumed in one hour at a rate of 1kW.
Lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) – An economic technique used in selecting the most
financially valuable solution based on total costs over a project’s lifetime
(Ashworth, 1989).
16
Lithium ion battery (Li-ion) – A battery of lightweight material, high energy density
and electrochemical potential, low maintenance, and little environmental harm
upon disposed (Battery University, 2012).
Motor gasoline – Light hydrocarbon oil distilled between 35ºC and 215ºC. For use as
fuel in internal combustion engines for motor vehicles. May include additives,
oxygenates, and octane enhancers (Waldron et al., 2006).
Natural gas liquids (NGLs) – Liquefied hydrocarbons produced in the manufacture,
purification, and stabilization of natural gas. These include ethane, propane,
butane, pentane, natural gasoline, and condensate (Waldron et al., 2006).
Net present value (NPV) – Total future cash flows discounted at a rate determined to
account for the greater value of money today than in the future because it can be
invested today and increased (Johnson, 2010).
Nitrous oxide (N2O) – A GHG produced in the process of operating an ICE.
Petroleum – Refined crude oil, referred to interchangeably as oil in this study.
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) – An HEV with a battery charged from
plugging into electric power grid.
Renewable portfolio standard (RPS) – State regulated goals for investor owned utilities
to provide a specific portion of electricity from renewable sources by a certain
date (EIA, 2012c).
Sustainable – “...Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 2012,
p. 1).
17
Triple bottom line (TBL) – In addition to traditional economic profits, includes
environmental and social impacts from business operations.
Truck fleet – In this study, refers to a group of trucks and vans included in a commercial
fleet regardless if the fleet operator managers other vehicles.
Vehicle-to-grid (V2G) – An energy storage technology built on top of EVs that
improves use of fluctuating renewable energy sources and capable to deliver
power from the vehicle to the grid to help stabilize grid capacity and frequency
(Lund & Kempton, 2008).
Watt (W) – A metric unit used to measure the rate of energy generation or consumption
(power). 1,000 watts = 1 kilowatt (kW); 746 watts = one horsepower.
Importance of the Study
Demand for transportation fuel in the US will increase significantly by 2025,
driven primarily by truck use (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Petroleum produced in the US will
supply only half of the demand as shown in Figure 4. Alternative transportation fuels for
truck use will positively affect the U.S. economy, trade deficit, political dichotomies with
oil countries, energy security, environmental factors, health and welfare, and social
responsibilities.
18
Figure 4.United Sates petroleum production and transportation consumption, 1970 to

2035 (Davis et al., 2012).
The study provides a holistic view for the acquisition of EVs, primarily centrally-
located commercial truck fleets. Profiled variables relevant to vehicle use and fuel
determine the best use of EVs in fleet operations. Environmental and social inputs
expand traditional economic components used in decision-making. The study obtains
economic and environmental data through questionnaires and data extraction from a
sample of truck fleet operators. Research of GHG emissions provide estimates from
energy source to vehicle use (referred to in industry as “well to wheel” or “source to
tailpipe”; however, as electricity does not come from a well and EVs are not equipped
with tailpipes, this study uses the term “source to wheel”). Environmental costs include
CO2 cost per ton per mile by fuel type. LCA include economics covering vehicle
acquisition, operation, and disposal. Finally, a model constructs the risk, cost, and
benefit analysis of the environmental, economic, and social elements for use by fleet
operators in making acquisition decisions of EVs.
As fleet operators diversify transportation fuels within their operations, deciding
which vehicles for each fuel type is complex. This research profiles fleet variables
19
applicable to EVs as a viable alternative to petroleum. This holistic model designed to
measure the environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits provides fleet
operators with a tool to assist in decision-making for vehicle acquisition and fuel types.
Summary
Replacing petroleum use in the US with alternative fuels reduces negative effects
from environmental issues, improves the US energy security and trade deficit, stabilizes
fuel supply and prices, and improves quality of life. The primary use of petroleum in the
US is for motor vehicles. EVs are one alternative to motor vehicle use of petroleum.
Although generating electricity from coal produces negative effects on the
environment, generating electricity from renewable energy and natural gas can reduce the
use of coal. EVs also promote growth of renewable energy use by providing battery
storage for intermittent solar and wind. Additionally, EVs may help stabilize the grid
with V2G opportunities for frequency regulation and meeting peak demand loads.
Improvements in EVs and battery technology are gaining market traction to move
EVs from pilot testing to mainstream use. Fleet operations of trucks and vans potentially
provide an optimal use of EVs. This study’s NPV of lifecycle costs of EVs and ICEVs
provides comparable results for analysis. Moreover, analyzing the risks, costs, and
benefits of the environmental, economic, and social issues provides a holistic approach to
decision-making for vehicle acquisitions. The processes and model in this study provide
fleet managers the tools for holistic analysis in acquisition decision-making of EVs
compared to petroleum and CNG fueled vehicles.

20
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Using fossil fuels for transportation is not sustainable (Venkatarama & Gartner,
2011). Global demand for oil is rising with population growth and increased use of
automobiles, particularly as developing countries progress (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Oil
supplies are unreliable and prices are volatile with expected increases (Callaway, 2011;
Electric Drive Transportation Association [EDTA], 2012a; Electrification Coalition,
2009; United States (U.S.) Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2012a; U.S.
Senate, 2011; World Bank, 2012;). At current use and growth rates, forecasts show oil
demand exceeding oil supply as early as 2015 (Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.).
Adopting alternative fuels reduces the amount of petroleum used, reduces ozone
and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, decreases the U.S. dependence on foreign supply
of petroleum, and creates domestic jobs (U.S. Senate, 2011; Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.).
Deciding which alternative fuel and vehicle technology to implement depends on the
vehicle use, as well as environmental, economic, and social impacts (Lyden, 2012).
Determining all the environmental, economical, and social factors of various fuels and
vehicle types, and then analyzing the data, especially with emerging technologies, is a
daunting task for fleet managers (National Private Truck Council [NPTC], n.d.).
According to Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of Ford Motor Company:
Sustainability is the biggest issue facing business in the 21st century…

How we answer the challenge of the future of mobility will have a lasting
impact on generations to come. By collaborating . . . we are able to
inspire people to make smart decisions about the products they choose
today. (EDTA, 2012d)
The immediacy of replacing petroleum as motor fuel in the US ensures sharing remaining
resources with global users, available for other uses, and reserving them for future
21
generations. Alternatives to petroleum and evolving technologies mean supplementing
traditional vehicle acquisition decision-making with input from the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), auto manufacturers, equipment suppliers, industry
associations, research institutes, and academia.
A holistic approach to sustainability issues considers the organization and the
environment in which it operates as a whole greater than the sum of its parts (Holistic
Management International, 2010). Holistic management is a decision-making process for
maximizing a triple bottom line (TBL) of economic, environmental, and social results
while minimizing risks (Savory, 1999; Stubs & Cocklin, 2008). The United Nations’
(1992) Framework Convention on Climate Change recognized the need for a scientific
approach to TBL. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL; 2002) researches
the economic, environmental, and legislative issues that influence fleet operators to
consider alternative fuel vehicles.
Traditional cost-benefit analysis (CBA) primarily focuses on short-term monetary
objectives, whereas lifecycle cost analysis (LCA) with a holistic approach entails long-
term effects from the initial sourcing of natural resources to manufacturing, distribution,
product use, and finally, product disposal (Shrivastava, 1995). Sustainable firms exist for
more than just making a profit (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Stubbs and Cocklin (2008)
created a sustainability business model (SBM) to include TBL indicators. Key concepts
of the SBM suggest that organizations:
 work for the common good, for the benefit of multiple stakeholders, and not just
corporate shareholders;
22
 cooperate with stakeholders to achieve a TBL; and
 strive to achieve environmental and social outcomes by tempering short-term
financial outcomes.
Data Research
This study primarily analyzes private commercial fleet trucks. However, the
principles are similar for municipality, utility, and government trucks and buses. The
literature often included information on trucks and buses outside of private commercial
fleets.
Research reviewed for this study included extensive public data on transportation,
vehicles, energy, and environmental issues primarily published by:
 The DOT, including its agencies:
o Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
o National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and
o Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).
 The DOE, including its agencies:
o Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne),
o EIA,
o Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE),
o NREL, and
o Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Oak Ridge).
 The EPA.
 The U.S. Census Bureau.

23
The researcher reviewed fleet data from publications, websites, and conferences
of several fleet and truck industry associations. Several nonprofit and for-profit research
institutions provided studies, tools, data, and forecasts on vehicles, fuel, energy, and the
environment. Some public data refer to all trucks and not just fleet trucks.
Characteristics of Truck Fleets
A fleet is a group of vehicles owned or leased by a company to haul its own
products for a business purpose other than transportation (NPTC, n.d.). Private
commercial fleets operate nearly 80.0% of trucks in the US. Fleet operators of trucks
often manage cars in their fleet as well (Automotive Fleet, 2012).
NAFA Fleet Management Association (NAFA, 2012) classifies motor vehicle
fleets operating 25 or more vehicles as large fleets. Automotive Fleet (2012) reports on
fleet operators with 15 or more vehicles under management and/or those that buy or lease
five or more new vehicles per year. However, most reports related to fleets do not
distinguish by number of vehicles.
Fleet operations vary by vehicle types, market segments and industries,
operational duties, and transportation fuels used (NAFA, 2012). Fleet operators may
lease vehicles within their fleet as a financing option, including leased vehicles with fleet
data as if owned, regardless if treated as a capital or operating lease for accounting
purposes (Automotive Fleet, 2012). However, the private fleet industry does not include
commercial carriers and other for-hire delivery trucks, even when hired by fleet
operators, as private fleet operators do not manage these vehicles and the agreements are
generally short-term (NPTC, n.d.).

24
Effectively managing the significant costs of fleet operations is critical to the
bottom line profits of an organization (NPTC, 2012). Fleet management responsibilities
generally include selection and procurement of new or replacement vehicles; use and
maintenance of operating vehicles, related equipment, and infrastructure; fuel purchasing;
regulatory reporting; safety; and the disposal or remarketing retired fleet assets (NAFA,
2012; PHH Arval, 2012).
Per a recent survey by PHH Arval (2012), the top three priorities of
telecommunications and utility fleet managers are optimizing fleet size, reducing
maintenance costs, and reducing fuel consumption. A survey by Automotive Fleet of
commercial fleet managers listed cost-reduction initiatives, fuel price volatility, and
implementing green fleet initiatives among the top challenges facing commercial fleets in
2012 (Antich, 2012). Automotive Fleet’s survey found that external factors affecting
fleet managers’ lifecycle costing included the national economy, increased vehicle
acquisition costs, volatile fuel pricing, regulations, and unexpected repair costs.
Vehicles
United States trucks and buses accounted for 41.0% of global highway vehicles
(Davis et al., 2011). Trucks comprised 52.0% of the eight million fleet vehicles in the
US. Vehicles operated by the 300 largest private commercial fleets in the US were
75.0% light- and medium-duty trucks, vans, and sport utility vehicles and 25.0% cars and
crossover vehicles (Automotive Fleet, 2012). Fleets registered over 800,000, or
approximately 30.0%, of new light-duty trucks in 2010 (EERE, 2012a).
The FHWA classifies trucks into eight categories by gross vehicle weight (GVW)
rating (GVWR) assigned when manufactured (Davis et al., 2011). GVWR is “the
25
maximum rated capacity of a vehicle, including the weight of the base vehicle, all added
equipment, driver and passengers, and all cargo” (FHWA, 2013, p. 1). Light-duty trucks
are in Class 1 to Class 3, medium-duty trucks in Class 4 to Class 6, and heavy-duty trucks
in Classes 7 and 8. Table 1 shows the quantity of units sold in 2010 and total units in
service by GVWR class, average annual miles, and fuel used in 2002, per the last year of
DOT’s Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey. Although Class 8 trucks comprised less than
2.0% of new unit sales in 2010, they used over 20.0% of total motor vehicle fuel
consumed in 2002. Class 3 to 7 trucks used approximately 7.0% of highway vehicle fuel
(Lovins & Datta, 2006). Table 2 profiles examples of trucks in each GVWR class,
including average miles per gallon (MPG) and average percent of vehicles run on diesel
versus gasoline.
Table 1
Truck Sales, 2010 and Unit Info, 2002, by GVWR Class
New Sales, 2010 Total Units, 2002 a

% of % of Average % of
Class Units Total Units Total Miles/Year Fuel Use
1 4,245,000 69.2% 51,941,389 61.0% 11,882 42.8%
2 1,513,000 24.7% 28,041,234 32.9% 12,684 30.5%
3 161,000 2.6% 691,342 0.8% 14,094 1.1%
4 12,000 0.2% 290,980 0.3% 15,441 0.5%
5 31,000 0.5% 166,472 0.2% 11,645 0.3%
6 29,000 0.5% 1,709,574 2.0% 12,671 3.2%
7 38,000 0.6% 179,790 0.2% 30,708 0.9%
8 107,000 1.7% 2,153,996 2.5% 45,739 20.7%
6,136,000 100.0% 85,174,777 100.0% 13,087 100.0%
Note. Adapted from Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30, 2011 (Davis et al., 2011) and
DOT’s Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey, 2002.
a
The last year DOT reported Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey.
26
Table 2
Examples of Trucks in Each Truck Class
Ave
Class – Gross Vehicle Weight in pounds MPG % Diesel
23
a. 21
b. 13
8-13 48.0%
7-12 92.0%
6-12 91.0%
5-12 91.0%
4-8 38.0%
c. 4 100.0%
d. 6 100.0%
Note. Adapted from Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 30, 2011 (Davis et al., 2011).
a. Trucks with GVW of 6,001 – 8,500 pounds.
b. Trucks with GVW of 8,500 – 10,000 pounds.
c. Straight trucks, e.g., Dump, Refuse, Concrete, Furniture, City Bus, Tow, Fire Engine.
d. Combination trucks, e.g., Tractor-Trailer: Van, Refrigerated, Bulk Tanker, Flat Bed.
27
Industries
The primary market segments for truck fleet operators are commercial, utilities,
school districts, and municipal, state, and the U.S. federal governments (Automotive
Fleet, 2011; Davis et al., 2011; NPTC, n.d.). Commercial truck fleet operators are
primarily in construction, agriculture, retail distribution, food and beverage, package
delivery, and communications industries (Automotive Fleet, 2011; Davis et al., 2011;
NPTC, n.d.). Table 3 lists the industry and truck types for the 10 largest commercial
truck fleet operators in 2011. Companies operating more than 515 alternative fueled
vehicles include the percent of their total fleet considered as green vehicles.
Table 3
Top 10 Commercial Truck Fleets, 2011
Class Class %
Rank Company Industry 1-2 3-6 Vans SUVs Total Green a
1 UPS Delivery 4,615 66,165 1,853 0 72,633 2.0%
2 AT&T Communications 22,975 13,408 20,848 3,087 60,318 8.0%
3 Verizon Communications 20,224 23,035 15,509 0 58,768
4 Comcast Corp. Communications 6,059 7,140 23,888 785 37,872 17.0%
5 PepsiCo, Inc. Food & 17,418 3,973 0 0 21,391 5.0%
beverage
6 Servicemaster Residential and 13,300 0 0 0 13,300
commercial
services
7 Quanta Construction 1,800 8,300 297 290 10,687
Services services
8 Cox Communications 4,817 782 3,917 1,024 10,540 38.0%
Enterprises
9 Sears Retail 260 200 9,800 225 10,485
10 AmeriGas Fuel supply 795 7,973 36 9 8,813 8.0%
92,263 130,976 76,148 5,420 304,807
30.0% 43.0% 25.0% 2.0% 100.0%
Note. Automotive Fleet, 2012.

a
Includes portion of total vehicles for companies with more than 515 vehicles fueled by compressed
natural gas, propane, flex-fuel, biodiesel, hybrid, or electric motor.
28
Operational Duties
To identify the ideal work and financial benefits from an alternative fueled
vehicle, a fleet operator must first analyze the range of operations within its fleet
(McMorrin et al., 2012). Duty cycle for fleet vehicles includes a general description of
the vehicles’ daily use (NREL, 2002). Fleet operators use trucks for delivery of goods,
food products, or raw materials to consumers, businesses, or construction sites (Davis et
al., 2011). Some fleet operators also use trucks for servicing consumers or businesses
with communications, building infrastructure, or landscaping.
Commercial fleet trucks deliver a substantial portion of U.S. goods. Total freight
shipped within the US increased by 1.5 billion tons, or 13.0%, from 1997 to 2007 (Davis
et al., 2011). Trucks carried over 94.0% of the increased freight, bringing the tons
shipped by truck to 73.0% of total tons shipped, with the remainder shipped by rail,
water, air, or pipeline. Private fleets haul 52.0% of the total tons of commodities shipped
in the US, of which 81.0% is local delivery and the remainder is by long haul on
highways (NPTC, n.d.).
A fleet operator may spec a vocational vehicle with the engine or electric motor
from one manufacturer and the transmission from another manufacturer (EERE, 2008a).
Vocational vehicles use truck energy for tools in providing a service, such as cement
trucks used for mixing and laying product (EERE, 2012a). Utility companies use boom
trucks for installing or repairing infrastructure, and various other industries use such
trucks for installing large or heavy goods high up, such as signs or HVAC machinery.
Municipalities use trucks for refuse collection, snow plowing, street cleaning, and
emergencies, such as with ambulances and fire trucks. In addition, transit and para-
29
transit buses transport people (Davis, et al., 2011). School districts use various size
school buses to transport students. Government nontactical vehicles are primarily used
for deliveries and transporting people.
The majority of trucks travel within 50 miles of home base: 69.0% for light-duty,
62.0% for medium-duty, and 41.0% for heavy-duty (Davis et al., 2011). Fleets that refuel
trucks at their own facility are primarily those with a greater number and larger size
vehicles. Nearly 44.0% of fleets with six or more trucks fuel at fleet facilities.
EV America performs vehicle test comparisons based on driving cycle range,
constant speed range, maximum speed, acceleration, charge time, charge efficiency,
vehicle specifications, braking, and handling (Francfort, 1998). Ford Motor Company
(2011) defined the drive cycle as range, cargo, and daily drive routine to determine
vehicle and tank size. Factors include how many vehicle miles occur in urban, suburban,
or rural areas, number of stops per trip, miles between stops, and average time at each
stop (Electric Power Research Institute [EPRI], 2011a). In addition, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) by hour and time at rest help define the vehicle use. Driver behavior in
operating the vehicle is yet another factor.
Through its national laboratories, the DOE provides an Advanced Vehicle Testing
Activity program to assist fleet operators in making vehicle purchase decisions, including
medium- and heavy-duty trucks (EERE, 2012a). The data NREL collect for vehicle
testing emphasize performance requirements such as length, weight, top speed, grade
ability, acceleration, range, braking, noise, durability, emissions, fuel economy, any
special requirements, and other useful available information. NREL details fleet
operations and capital assets, including a description of the refueling, maintenance,

30
vehicle storage facilities, and systems. Variables for capital costs cover facilities, any
modifications, and new vehicles and engines.
Data for a vehicle operating cycle include expected route descriptions, average
speeds, operating hours and days per week, fueling amount, and range per day and
between fueling (EERE, 2012a). Analysis of vehicle use includes the number of VMT
while used in service per day and month, average and varying speed, acceleration, route
assignments, and terrain information. Fuel consumption data include amount of fuel,
odometer reading, date, and fuel price at each fueling.
Maintenance data cover preventive, unscheduled, and road calls. These data
include date of repair, labor hours, number of days out of service, odometer reading,
parts replaced, parts costs, and descriptions of problem and repair (EERE, 2012a). For
ICEVs, preventive maintenance data include engine oil consumption, which
encompasses amount of oil; odometer reading; date; oil changes; and engine oil prices at
each oil change. NREL also monitors warranty repair information. Safety incident data
include maintenance facilities, nature of incident, and any changes in procedures or
hardware to prevent future safety incidents.
Vehicle Fuels and Technologies
Although petroleum still accounts for 99.8% of vehicle fuel, use of alternative
fuels is growing rapidly (EIA, 2009; Lovins, 2011b). Certain fuels are capable of
replacing petroleum in existing vehicles, such as ethanol. Other fuels require some
vehicle conversion, such as for compressed natural gas (CNG). Some technologies, such
as electric vehicles (EVs) and hydrogen, are carriers of energy, rather than a direct energy
source, and require a different powertrain from conventional vehicles (EERE, 2010b).
31
Lyden (2012) reviewed the advantages, disadvantages, and futures of alternative
fuels, including bio-diesel, propane, CNG, electric, and hybrid. Each fuel is potentially a
viable alternative to petroleum, depending on a vehicle’s duty cycle. Fleet operators may
eventually use some of each of these alternative fuels, as well as other emerging
technologies, such as hydrogen fuel cells. Fleet managers need to stay current on
emerging trends.
The DOE states that the use of alternative fuels and advanced technology trucks
can significantly reduce petroleum consumption and GHG emissions (EERE, 2012a). As
of 2009, 826,000 vehicles, or 0.2% of total vehicles in the US used alternative fuels (EIA,
2011). Of those, 61.0% used ethanol, 17.0% used propane, 14.0% used CNG, 6.0% used
electric (not including hybrids), and less than 1.0% used hydrogen. Between 2000 and
2009, use of ethanol increased 476.0%, propane decreased 19%, CNG increased 13.0%,
and electric increased 384.0%.
Ethanol, derived from plant-based feedstocks, added to gasoline or diesel creates
a blended liquid fuel referred to as bio-fuels or bio-diesel (Jerram & Gartner, 2012).
Theoretically, there is no change in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions when bio-fuels made
from surface carbon products emit CO2 as a transportation fuel (Merseyside Renewable
Energy Institute, 2012). Although ethanol is currently a popular additive, Yuhnke and
Salisbury (n.d.) recon that the capacity for feedstocks used to make ethanol is limited.
Additionally, crops to feed the population growth by 2020 will need the water and land
currently used to grow ethanol feedstocks. Therefore, this study did not compare ethanol
to EVs for fleet purposes.

32
Propane is a by-product formed from processing natural gas and refining oil
(Jerram & Gartner, 2012). It is stored as liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) at 200 pounds
per square inch and 100°F in pressure tanks, and then released as a gas to burn in an
engine. LPG reduces vehicle maintenance costs and emits less GHG than gasoline.
However, current regulatory and policy focus on other fuels constrain near term market
growth of propane (Sloan & Meyer, 2010). Therefore, this study did not compare
propane to EVs for fleet purposes.
Hydrogen fuel cells generate electricity on board vehicles from compressed
hydrogen gas stored in tanks (Jerram & Gartner, 2012). Hydrogen does not emit GHG.
Hydrogen fuel technology is still in development with mass marketing anticipated in
several years (Duncan & Osborne, 2005). Difficulties and expenses exist in production
and distribution of hydrogen. Fuel cell technology may benefit the building industry
before adoption by the transportation industry. Pike Research (Pike; Gartner, 2011) has
predicted that the DOE will shift away from fuel cell technology for vehicles and toward
EVs and HEVs due to uncertainty in the fuel cell market. Therefore, this study did not
compare hydrogen fuel cells to EVs for fleet purposes.
Petroleum
To understand the importance of alternative fuels, one must first understand the
impacts of petroleum for comparison. Petroleum is the primary transportation fuel used
in the US (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Petroleum is refined into gasoline or diesel for
transportation fuel.
The proportion of diesel-fueled trucks varies by GVWR class (EERE, 2012a).
Of total factory trucks sold in 2010, diesel comprised less than half of Class 3 trucks;
33
over 90.0% of Class 4, 5, and 6 trucks; less than 40.0% Class 7 trucks; and virtually
100.0% of Class 8 trucks. Sales of Class 3 and 7 diesel trucks declined approximately
20.0% from 2006 to 2010, while diesel truck sales in all other classes increased or
remained the same as a percent of total truck sales.
Highway vehicles in the US consumed nearly 12 million barrels of petroleum
daily, which approximates 14.0% of global consumption in 2011 (Davis, et al., 2011).
Although trucks and vans comprise only 20.0% of on-road vehicles, they cover over
31.0% of total VMT and use nearly 49.0% of total vehicle fuel consumed. Utility trucks
tend to use more gas for vocational use than for driving (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
As show in Table 4, truck use of petroleum increased 23.4% from 2000 to 2010, while
all other transportation and market sectors decreased petroleum use.
Table 4
U.S. Petroleum Use by Market Sector and Vehicle Type, 2010 and 2000 (million barrels
per day)
% of % of
2010 Total 2000 Total Change
a
Trucks 7,216 37.5% 5,850 30.0% 23.4%
b
Autos 4,423 23.0% 4,780 24.5% -7.5%
c
Non-highway transportation 1,909 9.9% 2,164 11.1% -11.8%
Residential 670 3.5% 870 4.5% -23.0%
Commercial 360 1.9% 420 2.2% -14.3%
Industrial 4,510 23.4% 4,920 25.2% -8.3%
Electric utilities 170 0.9% 510 2.6% -66.7%
19,258 100.0% 19,514 100.0% -1.3%
Note. Adapted from Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 31 (Davis et al., 2012).
a
Includes pick-ups, minivans, sport-utility vehicles, vans, heavy trucks, and buses.
b
Includes cars and motorcycles.
c
Includes air, rail, pipeline, and water transportation.
34
Currently, petroleum is relatively abundant and easy to retrieve in large quantities
(Lovins & Datta, 2006). Petroleum is transportable in its natural form. The U.S.
infrastructure for gas and diesel distribution is well established. There were over 164,000
gasoline-fueling stations in the US in 2007 (EERE, 2008b). In addition, petroleum
possesses a high energy density, allowing for long ranges before refueling and providing
power for acceleration, grade, and maximum speed (Lovins & Datta, 2006).
While global demand for oil increases, the world’s supply decreases (Campbell &
Laherrere, 1998). Oil extracting processes get increasingly difficult after depleting the
easier to obtain reserves. Furthermore, the extracting processes from tar sands and shale
create air pollution. Regardless of oil reserve levels, there are diminishing returns in
extracting for usable purposes. Importing oil from countries with unfriendly political
relations with the US may prove difficult at times, especially when only a few countries
control the majority of the world’s oil.
Obtaining conventional oil may tap out by 2020 (Lovins & Datta, 2006). Oil
prices will continue to rise. Expected increases in oil prices are an economic driver for
moving away from petroleum (Callaway, 2011; EDTA, 2012a; EIA, 2012a;
Electrification Coalition, 2010; U.S. Senate, 2011). Forecasts for crude oil price per
barrel range from $200 by 2030 to $269 by 2040, or $163 in 2011 dollars as a reference
case to $235 in 2011 dollars as a high case (EDTA, 2012a; EIA, 2013a; Electrification
Coalition, 2010). The high case represents an annual increase of 5.5% from $95 per
barrel as of December 2012, which outpaces gross domestic product (GDP) forecasted
growth by 3.0% (EIA, 2012a). On the other hand, increased demand for alternative fuels
may help stabilize demand for gas and oil prices (Salisbury & Yuhnke, 2011).
35
ICEs are only 25.0% to 27.0% efficient in using petroleum’s energy, and
transmissions reduce the efficiencies further (EIA, 2012b). Average mileage rates
increase from technology improvements and replacements of older and less fuel-efficient
vehicles. From 1998 to 2008, MPG increased an average of 5.2% from 17.2 MPG to
18.1 MPG for light- and medium-duty trucks, and 1.6% from 6.1 MPG to 6.2 MPG for
heavy-duty trucks (DOT, DOE, & EPA, 2002; EIA, 2012b). Continued technology
advancements should further improve mileage rates 30.0% to 40.0% by 2020 (McMorrin
et al., 2012).
Compressed Natural Gas
Natural gas is a fossil fuel primarily composed of methane (CH4; Lyden, 2012). It
is clear, odorless, and noncorrosive (California Energy Commission, 2012). Although
natural gas is available in a liquid form, it generally compresses to gaseous form at
pressures over 3,100 pounds per square inch for storage and distribution. Most of natural
gas consumed in the US is domestically produced at a relatively low cost from wells or
shale, and then transported by pipeline and stored in thick metal tanks. Any CNG leaked
from tanks quickly dissipates since it is lighter than air, yet CNG is flammable at
concentrations of 5.0% to 15.0% with air. Although currently less popular, use of
liquefied natural gas (LNG) is growing, primarily for heavy-duty trucks and transit buses
(EERE, 2010b; Lyden, 2012).
Vehicle owners primarily convert CNG vehicles from ICEVs (Hurst & Wheelock,
2011). However, conversions can void some vehicle manufacturers’ warranties. CNG
vehicles can run solely on CNG, or on a bifuel system selecting CNG or petroleum, but
usually not both at the same time (Lyden, 2012). Medium- and heavy-duty trucks
36
generally run on dedicated systems, while cars, pick-ups, and lighter medium-duty
vehicles may use dedicated or bifuel systems. Fuel tanks for CNG vehicles are larger and
heavier than gasoline tanks, varying by desired range and materials.
NREL performed a business case for CNG in municipal fleets of transit buses,
school buses, and refuse trucks, citing their circular routes and central refueling as ideal
for CNG (Johnson, 2010). The NREL study noted that use of CNG was positive in
reducing costs long-term, maintaining consistent operating costs, reducing GHG and
local air pollution, and reducing noise pollution. NREL analyzed costs for CNG vehicle
purchases and residual values, maintenance and operations, and charging stations for net
present value, rate of return, and payback period. CNG is most profitable when diesel
costs exceed $2.25 per gallon, for transit bus and refuse truck fleets over 75 units, or
when annual VMT are over 26,000 for transit buses and over 14,000 for refuse trucks.
Because CNG possesses a low energy density, the range between fuelings is short
(Gaines et al., 1998). Hurst and Wheelock (2011) noted that CNG is more favorable to
the fleet market due to greater likelihood of central fueling. However, several researchers
have acknowledged that the high costs of refueling infrastructure will impede growth of
CNG as an alternative transportation fuel (EERE, 2012a; Hurst & Wheelock, 2011;
Lyden, 2012; Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.). Only half of the 1,000 or so CNG refueling
stations in the US are open to the public (Lyden, 2012). As of 2011, the number of CNG
public charging stations by state were 258 in California, 103 in New York, 73 in Utah, 63
in Oklahoma, and the remainder of states with less than 50 each, many with less than 10,
and three with none (EERE, 2012a).

37
CNG vehicles in the US should grow approximately 25.0% annually, with sales of
32,000 new CNG units in 2016 (Hurst & Wheelock, 2011). Yuhnke and Salisbury (n.d)
suggested that a better use of CNG is as a replacement of coal in generating electricity
rather than as a transportation fuel. One thousand cubic feet of CNG as transportation
fuel provides energy for 230 miles, whereas natural gas as a source in generating
electricity provides energy for 374 miles in an EV, a 60.0% increase in mileage. In
addition, natural gas emits less CO2 and volatile organic compounds (VOC) from a power
plant than it does from a vehicle.
In comparing lifecycle GHG emissions from coal and natural gas for
transportation fuel and in generating electricity through 2032, Jaramillo (2007) found that
GHG emissions were similar when power plants use carbon capture and storage (CCS).
CCS is an emerging technology for power plants to separate carbon emissions from other
combustion products and to inject them underground. When using CCS, utilities inject
the majority of GHG from burning coal at power plants underground rather than sent into
the atmosphere. Jaramillo (2007) also found that using coal or natural gas for
transportation fuel would not reduce lifecycle GHG emissions. In addition, production of
coal entails safety issues and is more costly than production of CNG.
Electric Vehicles
An electric motor powers EVs (Jerram & Gartner, 2012). Battery EVs (BEVs)
are powered solely by a battery operated motor (The EV Project, 2012). The electric
power grid charges batteries for BEVs (EERE, 2003). For ease, this study simply refers
to BEVs as EVs.
38
In addition to the electric motor, a parallel hybrid EV (HEV) contains an internal
combustion engine (ICE) powered by gas, diesel, or an alternative fuel (EERE, 2012c).
The electric motor, batteries, and regenerative braking operate alongside the ICE to
power the drive wheels. The ICE and regenerative braking charge the on-board battery
during operation.
Plug-in HEV (PHEV) batteries obtain energy by plugging into the grid for
charging, similar to EVs; and by the ICE and regenerative braking, similar to EVs and
HEVs (EERE, 2012c; The EV Project, 2012). With larger battery packs than HEVs,
PHEVs may perform as well as conventional vehicles, while being safe and convenient
(EERE, 2012c). The ICE adds power to a PHEV for high acceleration, steep grades,
intensive climate control, or a nearly depleted battery. Alternatively, some PHEVs use
the ICE for propulsion and the battery for equipment use and climate control while idling.
If never plugged in for battery charging, PHEVs operate similar to HEVs. Alternatively,
if not driven beyond the all-electric range provided in some PHEVs between grid
recharging, PHEVs operate similar to EVs. Electric motor technology progressed from
HEVs with large loss of battery energy and limited battery power, to PHEVs needing the
grid for charging larger batteries, to EVs providing adequate energy and power for most
daily uses (Banvait, 2009).
In its annual report, CALSTART (2012) noted, “There is tremendous overlap and
synergy between the hybrid and plug-in truck sectors” (p. 3). Many concepts within this
study on EVs apply to PHEVs as they derive power from the grid as well. Table 5
illustrates the components of each electric powertrain type compared to gas. EVs are the
39
least complex as they do not contain an ICE and are the best environmentally as they do
not directly emit GHG or other air pollutants (EERE, 2003).
Table 5
EV Comparison by Powertrain Type
Gas EV HEV PHEV

Gas engine X X X
Electric motor X X X
NIMH battery X
Lithium battery X X
Emissions X X X
Fills up X X X
Plugs in X X
Note. Adopted from Ford Motor Company, 2012.
Manufacturing and models of EVs are primarily limited in the Class 3 to Class 7
truck market, but the number of manufacturers and units produced in the US are growing
(Oak Ridge, 2012). Many EV trucks ideal for light-, medium-, and heavy-duty
commercial fleet vehicles are in development or limited production (EPRI, 2011a).
Initial focus is on delivery vans, small and large transit buses, utility service vehicles,
urban delivery trucks, and off-road vehicles such as lift trucks, airport service vehicles,
refrigeration units, as well as applications at truck stops, ports, and mining sites. See
Appendix A, Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US. In addition, companies such
as Motiv Power Systems are custom building EV trucks from standard truck chassis,
excluding the ICE, by adding battery packs and electric drive systems (Castelaz &
Nagrani, 2012). Battery technology continues to evolve, improving EV range and
decreasing costs (EDTA, 2012a). Installation of charging infrastructure is expanding
quickly (McMorrin et al., 2012).

40
EPRI (2011a) forecasted the number of EV trucks in service as 0.5 million to 2.5
million, or 1.0% of total vehicles by 2015; 2.0 to 12.0 million, or 4.0% by 2020; and 12.0
to 65.0 million, or 18.0% by 2030. The Electrification Coalition (2010) forecasted the
number of EV units to exceed HEV units by 2025. Their forecast was 0.7 million EV
cars and trucks by 2013, 14.0 million by 2020, and 123.0 million by 2030. The Center
for Automotive Research (CAR; 2011) predicted EV growth based on historical hybrid
growth rates and estimated 140.0 million EV cars and trucks by 2015. EDTA (2012c)
predicted EVs to comprise 10.6% of new vehicle sales by 2015 and estimated 1.5 million
charging stations in the US by 2017. Table 6 summarizes General Electric’s predictions
related to EVs, including battery and electricity costs per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However,
recently advertised individual prices on Li-ion batteries for EV use approximated $300 to
$416 per kWh (Balqon, 2013).
Table 6
Forecast and Actual EV Units and Related Data
Forecast Actual
2030 2020 2010 2000 1990
EV sales % of total 30.0% 15.0% 3.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Battery cost/kWh $200.00 $350.00 $600.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00
Gasoline cost/gallon $3.67 $3.33 $2.72 $1.79 $1.79
Electricity cost/kWh $0.10 $0.09 $0.09 $0.06 $0.07
Electricity consumed a 5,373 4,602 4,236 3,858 2,924
EVs % of total electricity 11.8% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Note. Adopted from General Electric, 2012.
a
In terawatt hours.
Electric motors can power auxiliary and accessory systems even in ICEVs
(EERE, 2012a). Heavy-duty trucks can use an electric motor for auxiliary equipment,
such as for booms or hydraulics when in low speed and with frequent stops. Accessories
41
powered by electric motors include air conditioning, power steering, water pumps, and
fans. Idling on an electric motor than on an ICE is better for energy use and the
environment. Furthermore, EVs can power auxiliary systems for overnight idling by long
haul trucks silently and without emissions (Oak Ridge, 2012).
Van Amburg and Pitkanen (2012) and Lyden (2012) portended that the feasibility
of EV trucks is limited to urban areas where fleets return to a central charging station. In
addition, EVs are best for trucks with a fixed route using energy equivalent to driving 70
to 100 miles per day (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Characteristics of fixed route
applications are “stop and go; localized, dedicated routes; short haul; limited range; and
spoke and hub” (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012, p. 18). Examples include urban
delivery, refuse, mail trucks, and transit buses. Facility vehicles such as for “airports,
seaports, rail yards, military bases, parks, resorts, warehouse support and maintenance,
and cargo handling” (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012, p. 18) are other best use examples
for EV trucks. Also ideal are “high idle, work site applications” (Van Amburg &
Pitkanen, 2012, p. 18) such as for utility vehicles, aerial devices, and power required to
run an operation.
Profiling the ideal duty cycle for EVs includes low daily mileage, returning to
base, and availability for charging opportunities (McMorrin et al., 2012). Other
considerations include load capacity requirements and payload profile in conjunction
with miles traveled. Availability of a main charging facility, driver training, and off-peak
charging facilitates use of EVs. External factors include roadway type (motorway, rural,
sub-urban), variation in speed, and terrain. EVs provide an ideal solution to urban areas
42
mandating reduced emissions. The additional weight for having two powertrains reduces
cargo weight capacity in HEVs and PHEVs (EERE, 2010b).
According to CALSTART, EV trucks are a viable alternative when meeting urban
and suburban duty cycles and replacing petroleum with electricity from the grid or a
renewable power systems (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). CALSTART’s E-Truck
Task Force identified barriers and user needs; quantified industry needs and benefits;
determined duty cycles, vehicle deployment, and success cases; collected and reported
performance data; forecasted volume sales and prices; validated business case; and
recommended future steps to resolve barriers to promote long-term growth of EVs.
CAR (2011) portended that EVs benefit fleet operators more so than consumers as
fleets generally use more fuel, travel predictable routes, and pay lower commercial and
industrial electric rates. EVs are 90.0% energy efficient (General Electric, 2012). Due to
reduced noise, no gear change, and fewer moving parts, drivers identify EVs as more
pleasant to drive (McMorrin et al., 2012).
EVs provide lower and stable fuel costs, produce no noise or carbon emissions,
and reduce maintenance (McMorrin et al., 2012). EVs present less stress and fatigue for
drivers not having to make gear changes or clutch movements, and for reduced noise.
EVs provide branding benefits for the fleet company. Industry experts portray resale
value of EVs as strong. To develop a business case for purchasing EVs, fleet operators
must first determine if the technology is operationally practical and must then analyze
what the whole life costs are and how they differ from ICEs. However, Van Amburg and
Pitkanen (2012) found that fleet operators are waiting for data on actual performance of
EV trucks to analyze ideal duty operations and validate assumptions.

43
After purchase price, offsetting petroleum use is a critical variable in analyzing a
business case for EV trucks, per fleet participants in CALSTART’s survey (Van Amburg
& Pitkanen, 2012). Benefits of EVs include reducing U.S. dependence on oil, improving
energy security, reducing overall transportation fuel costs, improving air quality, and
increasing economic development (DOE & EPA, 2012; Edison Electric Institute [EEI],
2011; EDTA, 2012b; Lyden, 2012). Other variables include quality assessment, vehicle
use, battery replacement, and infrastructure costs. EVs experience lower maintenance
costs and no tailpipe emissions of GHG or VOC (Lyden, 2012). Maintenance for an
electric motor is much less than for an ICE with over 1,000 parts requiring frequent liquid
and replacements (McMorrin et al., 2012). Half of fleet operators are willing to pay more
for a larger battery with greater range and the other half are willing to trade off range for
lower capital costs (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
In a survey by Fleet Owner, reasons given by fleet operators who were
considering EVs included reducing operating costs, reducing GHG emissions, improving
corporate image, and decreasing dependence on foreign oil (Kilcarr, 2010). Fleet
operators reported that experiments with heavy-duty EVs were proving successful. Van
Amburg and Pitkanen (2012) stated that the value of EV trucks is not their size or
chassis, but their ability to handle end-use applications. Because the electric motor is
silent, EV trucks are usable at night in residential areas for time sensitive repairs. CAR
(2011) estimated that maintenance costs for EVs are half of those for ICEVs. EVs are
chargeable overnight when much of electricity supply is otherwise wasted (Ford Motor
Company, 2011). In addition, EVs do not need warming up when started. Furthermore,
44
EVs produce more torque and smoother acceleration than ICEVs, beneficial for hauling
heavier loads (EERE, 2012c).
No tailpipe emissions from EVs mean less smog in urban areas with vehicle
congestion (EDTA, 2012a). If 60.0% of U.S. vehicles were EVs, GHG emissions would
decline by one third. Although EVs do not emit GHG directly, the electricity used to
charge EV batteries is potentially from an energy source that emits GHG in processing,
such as coal (Jaramillo, 2007). However, burning fuel in a power plant to generate
electricity for EVs is more efficient and less polluting than burning fuel directly in a
vehicle (Beck, 2009; EERE, 2003). ICEV emissions cause more environmental irritants
in populated urban areas than emissions from power plants generally located outside of
urban areas (Ji, Cherry, Bechle, Wu, & Marshall, 2011). Ford Motor Company (2011)
reported that even when factoring in emissions from electricity generation, GHG
emissions from EVs were less than 10.0% of GHG from ICEVs.
Electric utility companies are increasing the use of renewable energy sources,
such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric (EDTA, 2012a). Electricity generated from these
renewable sources, as well as from nuclear sources, does not cause air pollutants (DOE &
EPA, 2012). EVs provide an opportunity for increasing the use of renewable energy
either through direct sourcing or through the grid (Lund & Kempton, 2008). In addition,
EVs are capable of storing energy as generated from renewable sources such as solar or
wind, and of providing energy back to the grid when needed as further discussed in
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) section.
Pike expected that 2012 would be a turning point for proving the value of EVs
(Venkataraman & Gartner, 2011). Its research demonstrated that EVs are a viable
45
replacement for ICEVs, primarily due to reduced operating costs and GHG emissions.
Growth of EVs will assist the U.S. federal government to reach its target of 50.0%
reduction in carbon emissions by 2025 (McMorrin et al., 2012). Asia Pacific’s auto
industry commitment to EVs for vehicle replacement after destruction from recent natural
disasters helps to expand the markets and technology at a faster rate (Venkataraman &
Gartner, 2011).
The biggest challenge for EVs is the high initial cost of the vehicle, battery,
charging station, and installation services (EPRI, 2010; Lyden, 2012; Van Amburg &
Pitkanen, 2012). Fleet Owner’s 2010 survey showed that 65.0% of fleet operators were
not likely to purchase an EV due to lack of information on pricing, operating costs, GHG
reductions, vehicles specifications, fuel efficiencies, and resale values (Kilcarr, 2010).
Fleet operators were also concerned about when and how battery charging would work.
As battery life is unknown and differs by use, potential costs include battery replacement
over a vehicle’s useful life (DOE & EPA, 2012). Other potential costs include adding or
upgrading power lines and electric services. In CALSTART’s survey of fleet operators,
respondents expected costs to decline in the future. In the meantime, the majority wanted
government incentives to offset up to 50.0% of the incremental cost of EV trucks (Van
Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
Fleet operators identified a need for improvement in operational reliability,
quality, warranty, and support from EV manufacturers and suppliers; real-world data for
profiling operational use and economical payback; planning assistance for charging
infrastructure; and more product availability and education (Van Amburg & Pitkanen,
2012). EV battery packs are heavy and bulky (DOE & EPA, 2012). Extreme hot or cold
46
climates may negatively affect EVs, as well as road salts (Summit Up, 2010). EPRI
(2007) also noted concern over regulatory issues and coordination with electric utilities.
Another significant issue with EVs is “range anxiety,” a driver’s fear of running
out of energy before finding available charging (Lyden, 2012). McMorrin et al. (2012)
acknowledged that range is a major factor in buying decisions for fleet operators.
Currently, most EV trucks’ driving range before refueling is 50 to 200 miles, versus
gasoline at 300 miles (DOE & EPA, 2012; Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). In addition,
recharging time may take up to 4 to 8 hours (DOE & EPA, 2012; Ford Motor Company,
2011). Even with quick-charging equipment, recharging a battery to 80.0% takes up to
30 minutes (DOE & EPA, 2012). Defining the number and type of charging equipment
is a challenge as well. Lyden (2012) acknowledged that HEVs or PHEVs are better
suited under conditions of extended range driving; energy intense applications, such as
refrigeration or other special equipment; limited charging time between shifts; or delivery
trucks maintaining a full load throughout most of a route.
Fleet vehicles are vital to mass deployment of EVs as their volumes assist
manufacturers and suppliers in reaching economies of scale and promoting infrastructure
build out (Azure Dynamics, 2012; CAR, 2011; EDTA 2012b). In addition, fleets are
more suitable than consumers are for taking advantage of V2G opportunities, which
should experience considerable growth in grid energy storage and ancillary services
(Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). The Canadian EV industry proclaimed the fleet market
as a key target (Summit Up, 2010).
Driving growth in EV trucks in the US are new Corporate Average Fuel Economy
(CAFE) regulations on medium- and heavy-duty trucks, reduced pricing as manufacturers

47
achieve economies of scale, and federal and state incentives for developing quick
charging stations for public use (EEI, 2011; Lyden, 2012). Employers are installing
Level 2 chargers for employee use at work, directly or through third party charging
companies (Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). Key to future growth of EVs is removing
planning barriers that slow infrastructure build-out (McMorrin et al., 2012).
CALSTART’s research found early adoption of EV trucks viable when used to
replace low mileage vehicles, provided EVs meet fleet operators’ needs operationally
(Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Upfront planning and collaborating with
manufacturers and service providers is critical to avoid unexpected infrastructure costs
and electricity demand charges. Manufacturing and design improvements as well as
expanded volumes and supply chains will reduce costs an expected 11.0% to 20.0% over
the next five years. Other research has shown that increased production volumes,
electronics, and battery capacity and efficiency, as well as decreased source costs will
reduce overall EV costs 30.0% by 2014 (Azure Dynamics, 2012). Fleet managers should
still perform lifecycle purchase evaluations in making purchase decisions.
Batteries. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are the standard technology for EVs, as
for cell phones and laptop computers (EERE, 2010a; Gartner & Gohn, 2012). The
benefits of Li-ion include ability to operate in moderately cold weather, high tolerance for
abuse, and capability for fast charging. Compared to nickel metal hydride batteries used
for initial acceleration and low speeds in hybrid vehicles, Li-ion batteries for EV and
PHEV propulsion have larger energy capacity, provide higher power, and are more
complex. Variables for Li-ion batteries include cell and module operating voltage,
48
recommended maximum depth of discharge (DOD), and operating temperatures (Beck,
2009). Lithium itself is a minor cost in manufacturing batteries (Innes, 2012).
NREL predicts that advances in battery technology will provide the most
significant promise for improvements in transportation (Pesaran, 2011). Continuous
improvements to Li-ion batteries increase power while reducing cost (Mraz, 2012). In
early 2012, a Li-ion battery proved an energy density of 400 Wh/kg in tests by the
Electrochemical Power Systems Department at the Naval Surface Warfare Center
(Alternative Energy eMagazine, 2012). Once in production, this record level of energy
should reduce current battery prices by 50.0% for a 300-mile range EV (EDTA, 2012a).
Manufacturer’s warranties for EV batteries average three to five years (Van
Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Useful battery life may average eight to 10 years, depending
on duty cycle, cooling, and number of full charge and discharge cycles (EDTA, 2012a;
Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). The cycle rating of a battery more specifically defines
the probable battery life (Beck, 2009). For example, a 36.4 kWh battery rated at 2,000
cycles with a recommended 85.0% DOD for an EV with 4 mile per kWh efficiency rating
driven 60 miles per day requires charging every two days (36.4 kWh multiplied by
85.0% DOD multiplied by 4 miles/kWh divided by 60 miles per day), or approximately
three times per week. At this rate, the battery may last 12.8 years, subject to other
internal and external factors (2,000 divided by the three charges per week multiplied by
52 weeks). Using a lower DOD setting allows for more charging cycles and longer
battery life (Beck, 2009).
Generally, the useful life of Li-ion batteries for vehicles terminates below 70.0%
to 80.0% capacity (EDTA, 2012a; McMorrin et al., 2012; Van Amburg & Pitkanen,
49
2012). A battery originally capable of 100 miles on a full charge will go 80 miles at
80.0% capacity on a full charge (McMorrin et al., 2012). Fleet operators may use
capacity-reduced batteries in less demanding routes or applications (Van Amburg &
Pitkanen, 2012). Additional secondary uses for batteries include powering buildings or
storing alternative energy generated from intermittent sources of wind and solar (Lund &
Kempton, 2008).
Challenges for EV battery growth include improving energy density,
discharge/charge rates, and safety (Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). Drivers are
concerned with limited mileage range per charge and availability to charging
infrastructure. EV purchasers must balance desired range with battery cost, weight, and
performance (Beck, 2009). Depending on load weight, EV trucks achieve an average of
50-100 miles per charge (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Factors affecting range
include the vehicle’s efficiency rating (kWh/mile), energy storage capacity in battery, age
of battery, number of battery charging cycles used, and amount of regenerative braking
(Beck, 2009). Factors affecting the amount of battery power required include ambient
temperatures, driving conditions, driver aggression in accelerating, use of auxiliary
systems, and weight of the vehicle, cargo, battery, and battery system. Right sizing the
battery for an EV is important in meeting required power at lowest cost (Van Amburg &
Pitkenen, 2012; Yildiz, 2010). CALSTART provides engineering models for balancing
performance with optimizing fuel economy and emissions (Van Amburg & Pitkenen,
2012).
NHTSA declared that EVs with Li-ion batteries were no more dangerous than
gasoline-powered vehicles after investigating a 2011 fire of a Chevy Volt using a Li-ion
50
battery (Keane, 2012). Excessive heat, such as from charging too quickly, can damage
Li-ion batteries (Beck, 2009). A DOE goal is to research and develop the next
generation of anode and cathode materials by 2014 (EERE, 2012a). Understanding
failure mechanisms should enable higher energy batteries with longer lasting and less
expensive modeling of cell and material behavior.
Batteries are a significant cost of EVs (McMorrin et al., 2012; Van Amburg &
Pitkanen, 2012). However, the cost of batteries is declining with advanced research and
development, as well as funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
for scaling up production in the US to compete globally. Costs will also decline with
expanded access to lithium and manufacturing improvements. To meet EV growth goals,
Pike suggests that the U.S. federal government support access to capital for charging
infrastructure, increase its $7,500 tax incentive per vehicle, and provide incentives for
second use energy storage after useful transportation life (Venkatarama & Gartner, 2012).
CALSTART asserts that battery financing can provide financial feasibility and
expand the EV market (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Leasing batteries reduces the
upfront cost of an EV in exchange for costing over the useful life of the battery, either at
a flat monthly rate, per mile charge, per kilowatt hour used, through battery replacement,
or through another flexible measure (Li & Ouyang, 2011; McMorrin et al., 2012; Van
Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Leasing structures for batteries require creativity and
collaborating with manufacturers, battery suppliers, utilities, and third party financing
companies (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
Battery leasing can minimize risks to fleet operators (Van Amburg & Pitkanen,
2012). Leasing provides opportunities for concentration of reusing and recycling

51
batteries for nonmileage purposes, such as for energy storage, grid load stabilization, and
back-up power; for maintenance; and for ultimate disposal (Li & Ouyang, 2011).
However, CALSTART’s survey of fleet operators showed larger fleets less interested in
leasing, primarily due to lack of data regarding battery life and residual values (Van
Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Furthermore, leasing carries credit and performance risk of
lessors.
Charging stations. Per CALSTART’s 2012 survey, the cost, availability, and
location of EV infrastructure is very important to fleet operators (Van Amburg &
Pitkanen, 2012). Charging EVs is a new procedure for fleet operators, which requires
business policies for where and when charging takes place (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Unfortunately, U.S. standards for EV supply equipment (EVSE) are limited
(Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). Nor do all utilities offer a formal commercial rate for
charging vehicles (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
EVSE may use alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC; Francfort, 1998).
Costs of DC charging equipment are generally 10 times that of AC, although forecasts
show costs declining 7.0% annually as technology improves and production increases
(Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). The power levels for charging EV batteries are:
 Level 1 – Uses AC, rated to 120 volts and 15 amps, uses standard 3-prong
connection on common circuit type, and is available on portable equipment
(Francfort, 1998). Typically used for overnight charging (EV Project, 2012).
 Level 2 – Uses AC, depending on regional power availability (Venkatarama &
Gartner, 2011); is rated to 240 volts, 60 amps, and 14.4 kW; and is permanently
52
wired for EV charging (Francfort, 1998). Typically used for overnight charging
(EV Project, 2012).
 Level 3 – Rated over 14.4 kW and permanently wired for EV charging (Francfort,
1998). Available on AC; however, on DC, is considered as “fast charging” in 20
to 30 minutes (Gartner & Wheelock, 2011, p. 1). Requires appropriate sizing and
charging times for battery pack (Francfort, 1998). Beneficial to corporate fleets
with large volume, lower electric rates, and need for quick charging turnaround
(EPRI, 2011a; Gartner & Wheelock, 2011).
EV growth depends on expansion of infrastructure (EDTA, 2012a). Many
municipalities, states, and research initiatives assist in EVSE installations to promote EV
growth and reduce urban emissions (EV Project, 2012; Gartner & Wheelock, 2011).
EERE (2012a) reported the greatest number of charging stations by state as 1,264 in
California, 365 in Washington, 336 in Michigan, 312 in Oregon, 287 in Texas, 256 in
Florida, and 214 in New York. Three other states offer over 100 charging stations, yet 10
states offer none. Pike noted that the advantages of charging stations at commercial over
residential sites are convenience and lower electric rates (Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011).
Also important to fleet operators is the amount of time required to charge an EV
(Lyden, 2012). For a simple estimation of the time to charge a battery, divide the battery
capacity in kWh by the lesser of the vehicle acceptance rate or the charging station’s
delivery rate in kW (Clipper Creek, 2012). However, rather than charging to a battery’s
full capacity, only charging to approximately 95.0% allows room for regenerative
braking energy at the start of a trip (Beck, 2009). In addition, the energy charge rate
varies to start low, accelerate, and taper off again.

53
Electricity generation. Electricity is an energy carrier, not an energy source
(Jaramillo, 2007). The primary raw source of energy used in generating electricity in the
US is coal, a fossil fuel. Other fossil fuels used in generating electricity include natural
gas and oil. The 104 nuclear reactors in the US provide a significant source of electricity,
although few reactors were built in the last 30 years and only four to six new plants are
projected for construction by 2020 (World Nuclear Association, 2012). Renewable
energy sources include hydrogen, geo-thermal, solar, wind, and biomass (EIA, 2012b).
Energy consumed in generating electricity increased 2.8% from 2003 to 2012, prorated
from September 2012, the latest data released by the EIA. Table 7 shows the portion of
electricity generated by source on a national average for 2003 and estimated for 2012.
Table 7
U.S. Sources for Electricity Generation, 2012 and 2003 (trillions of British thermal units)
2012 a 2003
% total % total Change
Fossil fuels:
Coal 15,869 40.6% 20,185 53.1% -21.4%
Natural gas 9,913 25.4% 5,246 13.8% 89.0%
Petroleum 224 0.6% 1,205 3.2% -81.4%
Total fossil fuels 26,007 66.5% 26,636 70.0% -2.4%
Renewable energy:
Hydro 2,811 7.2% 2,749 7.2% 2.2%
Geo-thermal 161 0.4% 146 0.4% 10.5%
Solar/ PV 41 0.1% 5 0.0% 726.7%
Wind 1,319 3.4% 113 0.3% 1067.0%
Bio-mass 427 1.1% 397 1.0% 7.5%
Total renewable energy 4,759 12.2% 3,410 9.0% 39.6%
Nuclear 8,152 20.9% 7,959 20.9% 2.4%
Import 165 0.4% 22 0.1% 651.5%
Total 39,083 100.0% 38,027 100.0% 2.8%
Note. EIA, 2012h.

a
Prorated from September 2012.
54
Table 7 shows that the net use of fossil fuels in generating electricity decreased
2.4% from 2003 to 2012 due to a decreased use of coal and petroleum, offset by an
increase in use of natural gas. The use of renewable energy in generating electricity
increased 39.6% from 2003 to 2012, primarily from an over tenfold increase in use of
wind. The portion of total electricity generated from renewable energy increased from
9.0% in 2003 to 12.2% in 2012.
Renewable energy sources of wind and solar vary by hour and season (Anair &
Mahmassani, 2012). The ratio of energy sources vary by regional and local utilities
(EERE, 2012d). Appendix B, Carbon Emissions by Power Control Area, summarizes the
percentage of energy sources for electricity generation by power area from the EPA’s
eGRID 2012 report using 2009 data. The following provides energy sources for a sample
of power control entities:
 Public Service Company Colorado – 54.0% coal, 36.0% natural gas, 1.0% hydro,
and 9.0% wind.
 Duke Energy Carolinas – 36.0% coal, 2.0% natural gas, 59.0% nuclear, 2.0%
hydro, and 1.0% other.
 ERCOT Independent Systems Operator (Texas) – 33.0% coal, 1.0% oil, 48.0%
gas, 12.0% nuclear, 5.0% wind, and 1.0% other.
Regardless of changes in demand, supply of electricity is at a constant daily rate
when generated from utility plants using coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro due to costly
inefficiencies in increasing or decreasing production (Lund & Kempton, 2008). The
production rate is generally set for peak demand levels. Conversely, electricity supply
generated from wind or solar generally shifts according to nature.

55
Demand for electricity is higher from industrial and commercial users during
normal daily working hours (Anair & Mahmassani, 2012). However, demand from
residential users drives the highest peak use period during weekday evening hours.
Additionally, demand fluctuates seasonally for air conditioning use in hotter months and
somewhat for heat in cooler months. As an example of electricity consumption, Figure 5
illustrates New England’s average electricity usage for weekdays on an hourly basis for
January 1 through October 31, 2011.
Megawatts
18,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
10,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Hour of Day
Figure 5. Average hourly weekday electricity usage, New England, January 1 to October
31, 2011, adapted from EIA, 2011.
Morning ramp up is primarily from 6:00 am to 9:00 am, and peak demand is at
6:00 pm (Lovins, 2011a). Peak demand increases 56.7% from the lowest demand period
at 4:00 am. When electricity supply exceeds demand, energy is wasted. When demand
exceeds supply, utilities risk “brown outs” where transmission of electricity cannot fully
meet consumers’ demands within a certain geographic area. Managing electricity supply
and demand through the antiquated grid is complex (Kempton & Tomic, 2004).
Regulations require utilities to stabilize the continuous fluctuations in frequency and

56
voltage through the grid (Lund & Kempton, 2008). The grid is vulnerable to physical
attacks, cyber-attacks, and solar storms (Lovins, 2011a).
Forecasts show U.S. electricity demand to increase 0.8% per year through 2035,
primarily due to projected population growth (EIA, 2012a). Through state regulated
renewable portfolio standards (RPS), investor owned utilities must generate a specific
portion of their energy supply from renewal sources (EIA, 2012c). Rather than building
additional capital intense power plants, growth in wind and solar structures may remedy
the increased demand and RPS targets. Charging EVs at night provides a primary
recipient of energy from wind, when generally at its strongest and other electricity
demand at its lowest (Beck, 2009). EV batteries can store the renewable energy supply
until needed to meet demand, thereby assisting in meeting RPS goals, decreasing GHG
from electricity generation, and reducing electricity waste (Lund & Kempton, 2008).
The growth of EVs and PHEVs require urgent support from electric utilities to
encourage and enable use of electricity for charging batteries (EDTA, 2012a; EEI, 2011;
EPRI, 2011b). Although EVs change the amount and timing of electricity demands,
studies have shown little to no impact on the grid for years (EEI, 2011). The current US
electric capacity could power 75.0% of cars if they were EVs. Ten million EVs with a
40-mile range would add only 1.0% to the total US electricity consumption. A survey of
energy companies projects EVs to consume approximately 7.0% of their total electricity
load by 2025, which Roush (2012) projected as 65 million EVs.
However, the issue of charging EVs is not one of capacity in total as much as in
timing (EPRI, 2011a). Twelve percent of EV users expect to charge batteries between
5:00 pm and 6:00 pm as shown in Figure 6. This is an already straining period on the
57
grid per Figure 5. Several sources have suggested that utilities adopt time of use pricing,
if they have not already done so, to help alleviate added demand during current peak time
(EEI, 2011; EPRI, 2011a; Roush, 2012; Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). Electricity rates
for EV charging can increase during peak use periods and decrease during off peak
periods as proposed in Figure 7.
Figure 6. Projected uncontrolled vehicle-charging load by hour (EPRI, 2011a).
Figure 7. Projected price controlled vehicle-charging load by hour (EPRI, 2011a).

58
The majority of energy companies recognize their supportive and financial role in
promoting EVs (Roush, 2012). Utilities need to update systems for tracking customer
EV data, analyze the effect of EVs on distribution networks, consider varying rate
structures for EV charging, ramp up for installing charging stations, and monitor rates
and legislation for regulatory changes (EEI, 2011). EV charging may shorten transformer
lives and increase replacement costs for utilities (Venkatarama & Gartner, 2011). Some
power distribution systems may need upgrading, especially where already overloaded.
Vehicle-to-grid. EVs plugged into the grid download electricity from the grid to
charge the EV battery (Anair & Mahmassani, 2012). The original infrastructure has
energy flowing through the electric grid and battery chargers in one direction. In theory
and in pilot testing, EVs can send energy from the vehicle back to the grid as needed for
grid support (Gibson & Gartner, 2011). In reality, the technology is still in limited pilot
testing. Figure 8 illustrates the flow of V2G.
Figure 8. Illustration of V2G technology, modified from Kempton and Tomic, 2004.
V2G is not as conducive for individual consumers due to its complexity and
rigidity with charging requirements, as well as utilities not motivated to contract with a
59
large number of small providers with unpredictable plug-in times and charging amounts
(Gibson & Gartner, 2011). However, fleet operators offer an ideal platform for V2G due
to economies of scale (Gartner & Wheelock, 2011). The complexities of V2G are better
suited to a third party aggregator rather than individual fleet operators.
According to Kempton and Tomic (2004), V2G offers four major ancillary
services for grid support: peak power, spinning reserves, regulation, and storage. Peak
power services of V2G allow the grid to draw energy from an EV battery during peak
demand periods; these services may occur 20 to 30 times per year and last for several
hours. V2G could replace expensive generators used for spinning reserves by drawing
energy from an EV battery quickly during an unplanned event; this may occur 20 times
per year, require a 10-min response, and typically last 1 hr. Regulation services control
balancing grid frequency and voltage automatically; these incidents occur several
hundred times per day, require immediate response, and last only a few minutes. V2G
allows for storage on EV batteries during periods of excess energy supply (Lund &
Kempton, 2008). Providing storage for intermittent renewable energies such as wind and
solar allows for increased energy use from those sources, improved utility companies’
return on renewable energy investments, and decreased energy use from GHG emitting
coal.
Revenue from V2G ancillary services can potentially offset some of the
incremental cost of EVs (Lund & Kempton, 2008). The larger battery packs in EVs
provide more V2G opportunity than PHEVs. In addition, energy storage on batteries
may limit the need for constructing additional power plants that take 15 years to build
and cost $2 billion (Orcutt, 2012).

60
Environmental
Holistic management considers an organization’s impact on the environment
(Savory, 1999). Practices for treating nature as a stakeholder are those that do no harm,
or otherwise make amends; leave the world better than found; and create a closed-loop
system that provides responsibility for a product throughout its lifecycle (Stubbs &
Cocklin, 2008). Business sustainability is a leading indicator of an organization’s future
value (Fiksel, 2009). Makower (2009) noted that environmental risks influence a
publicly traded company’s stock price and that shareholders are demanding companies to
identify, reduce, and report on these risks. Assessment of energy alternatives includes
effects on the environment (EPA, 2011).
Air
GHG produced from nature include CO2, CH4, nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3),
and water vapor (EPA, 2012a). Increased GHG emissions trap excess radiant energy
within the Earth’s atmosphere, causing unnatural climate changes (Energydefinitions,
2012). When climate changes too quickly, ecosystems cannot naturally adapt (United
Nations, 1992). The faster the rate of climate change the greater the increased risk of
damage (United Nations Environment Programme & the Climate Change Secretariate,
2002). Effects of climate change last for many years beyond the time of cause.
The U.S. Supreme Court and the EPA identified GHG as pollutants that endanger
the environment and public health and welfare (Milbourn, 2009). GHG negatively affect
air quality, climate, and energy (EPA, 2011). As of 2008, 127 million people in the US,
roughly 40.0%, lived in areas that did not meet air quality standards for at least one
pollutant. Climate changes affect temperature, extreme weather, precipitation, and sea
61
levels. Effects from climate change threaten food production and economic development
sustainability (United Nations Environment Programme & the Climate Change
Secretariate, 2002). Table 8 lists the life and potency of each GHG compared to CO2.
Table 8
Numerical Estimates of Global Warming Potentials (kilogram of gas per kilogram of

CO2)
Global warming potential
Lifetime direct effect over
Gas (years) 20 years 100 years 500 years
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 5-200 1 1 1

Methane (CH4) 12 72 25 8
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 114 289 298 153
HFCsb, PFCsc, and Sulfur
HFC-23
Hexafluoride 270 12,000 14,800 12,200
HFC-125 29 6,350 3,500 1,100
HFC-134a 14 3,830 1,430 435
HFC-152a 1 437 124 38
HFC-227ea 34 fs5,310 3,220 1,040
Perfluoromethane (CF4) 50,000 5,210 7,390 11,200
Perfluoroethane (C2F6) 10,000 8,630 12,200 18,200
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) 3,200 16,300 22,800 32,600
Note. Gases compared with CO2. Davis et al., 2011.
Primarily due to manmade fossil fuel combustion, GHG levels increased 19.5%
from 1990 to 2007, then decreased by 9.1% through 2011, despite a 3.6% increase in
2010 (EIA, 2012b). Declines continued through March 2012 of 7.8% from the same
period in 2011. Carbon dioxide emissions from motor gasoline increased 24.2% from
1990 to2007, primarily due to a 34.0% increase in VMT. Carbon dioxide and CH4
account for 94.0% and 4.0%, respectively, of GHG emissions in the US (EPA, 2012a).
Petroleum used as transportation fuel in 2010 emitted approximately 33.0% of CO2; coal
used in generating electricity emitted another 33.0%; and the remaining 33.0% was
primarily from petroleum, natural gas, and coal used in residential, commercial, and
industrial sectors. ICEs produce 75.0% of carbon monoxide emissions and

62
approximately 50.0% of the VOC in the US that form smog, nitrogen oxide emissions,
and other toxic emissions (EPA, 2012c). In addition, burning coal emits sulfur dioxide,
another major contributor to air pollution (Energydefinitions, 2012).
The US accounts for 20.0% of the world’s CO2 emissions as of 2007, of which
43.0% was from oil use (Davis et al., 2011). Highway vehicles, at 29.0% of oil use, were
the single largest contributor of U.S. GHG emissions. While most other transportation
modes and industry sectors decreased total GHG gas emissions from 1990 to 2009,
highway vehicles increased 24.0%, primarily due to an increased number of vehicles and
VMT. However, technology improvements and energy efficiencies improved CO2
emissions by 51.0% for cars and 42.0% for light-duty trucks sold from 1975 to 2010.
CNG emits 15.0% to 30.0% less GHG and 95.0% less overall toxins than gas or
diesel, yet emits greater amounts of CH4 (EERE, 2010b; Lyden, 2012; Salisbury &
Yuhnke, 2011). CH4 emissions are lower than CO2 but over 20 times as dangerous in
trapping GHG (EPA, 2012a). Although CNG is an improvement over petroleum, at the
current GHG level from CNG, if all vehicles used CNG by 2050, GHG emissions would
equate to the 2005 GHG levels from gas and diesel due to projected increases in VMT
(Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.).
The EPA is requiring CCS technology for all new coal firing plants (Harden,
2012). CCS will decrease CO2 emissions from coal and natural gas used in generating
electricity (EPA, 2012b). Furthermore, as renewable energy sources increase in
electricity generation, the amount of CO2 from EVs declines. Table 9 provides CO2
emissions per mile by fuel type.

63
Table 9
Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors and Uncertainty Ranges by Fuel Type
Motor Gas/Diesel
Gasoline Oil CNG
a
Default 69,300 74,100 56,100
Lower 67,500 72,600 54,300
Upper 73,000 74,800 58,300
Note. IPCC Guideline for GHG Inventory, adopted from Waldron, et al., 2006.
a
Kilograms per terajoules.
Other data related to GHG for motor vehicles:
 1 gallon of gasoline emits 19.4 pounds of CO2 (Davis et al., 2011).
 1 gallon of diesel emits 22.2 pounds of CO2 (Davis et al., 2011).
 Diesel provides 12.0% more energy per gallon than gasoline (Center for
Sustainable Systems, 2011).
 CO2 from CNG equivalent miles approximates 78.0% of gasoline (EERE, 2012b).
Figure 9 defines CO2 emissions from supply sources for electricity generation
over the entire lifecycle.
Figure 9. Global warming lifecycle emissions by energy source (gCO2e/kWh). Retrieved

from Anair and Mahmassani, 2012.
64
Figure 9 illustrates the grams of CO2 emitted per kWh over the lifecycle of energy
generated. These measurements include CO2 emitted from energy used for plant
construction and operation, distribution, and consumption. Most utilities use a mix of
energy sources to generate electricity. For example, electricity generated from 35.0%
coal, 42.0% gas, and 16.0% nuclear emit 72 grams of CO2 for EVs per kilometer, 105 for
hybrids, and 136 for ICEVs from source to wheel (McMorrin et al., 2012).
GHG cost measurements are in dollars per ton of equivalent CO2 emissions. The
social cost of carbon is an estimate of damages from increased CO2 emissions (EPA &
DOT, 2011). Putting a price on GHG helps drive a shift to alternative fuels (Greene &
Plotkin, 2011). Estimated costs to reduce CO2 per new CAFE standards by EPA and
DOT (2011) average $50 per metric ton, and range from $30 for combination tractors, to
$50 for vocational vehicles, to $240 for heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans.
When Ackerman and Stanton (2011) analyzed the EPA’s original 2010 social cost
of carbon at $21 per ton, as well as several other models, they concluded an abatement
cost closer to $150 to $500 per short ton. Greene and Plotkin (2011) estimated the cost of
energy security at $33 per metric ton of CO2 and stated that adding a use cost of $50 to
$65 per metric ton of CO2 on electricity utilities and transportation sectors will drive
market reductions in GHG gases. Salisbury and Yuhnke (2011) estimated investment
costs to reduce CO2 at $61 to $92 per ton, depending on the project, while the avoided
cost of emission control measures were estimated at $1,000 to $5,000 per ton of NOx and
VOC.
Global estimates for market prices per ton for carbon include (Hone, 2012; MSN,
2012):
65
 Australia AU$23 (US$24).
 European Union €8 (high of €30 in 2008; US$37 at 2012 conversion rate).
 Alberta Canada C$15 (US$15); British Columbia C$25 (US$25).
 California US$17; Northeast RGGI US$2-US$4 since 2008.
 UK £15.70 (US$24).
 Norway AU$22 equivalent (US$23).
 Sweden AU$100 equivalent (US$102).
 Switzerland AU$37 equivalent (US$38).
Difficulties in valuing a cost for CO2 or total GHG are due to the extensive size of the
problem and uncertainties in estimating benefits, level of reduction required, and impact
on the future (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
Land and Water
Extracting raw materials such as oil, natural gas, coal, or lithium without leaving
sustainable levels for the needs of future generations depletes environmental resources
(Jaramillo, 2007). However, NREL stated there is no immediate threat of lithium supply
to the growth of the EV market (Neubauer, 2011). According to Innes (2012), “lithium is
the 25th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust” (p. 7) and is not running out. In
addition, recycling lithium from batteries reduces additional mining (EPA, 2012d).
Surface mining of coal, then used for generating electricity, damages plant and
animal life (U.S. Department of the Interior [DOI], 1979). Underground mining risks
collapsing land surfaces. Toxins from mining leak into watersheds. Installation of wind
towers and solar panels may disrupt land use and animal life (Hopkins, 2010).
66
Oil spills contaminate land and water, even after costly cleanup efforts (Lovins &
Datta, 2006). Oil leaks contaminate groundwater. Solvents used in manufacturing some
lithium battery components are toxic to the environment, as is the disposal of certain
battery components (EPA, 2012d). However, unlike petroleum consumed as a fuel,
lithium is 98.0% recyclable and generally reused, which controls battery disposals.
Fracking, the process of forcing water, sand, and chemicals at high pressure into a
well to release natural gas, can cause micro earthquakes with evidence of increasing
magnitude and number from greater amounts of injected wastewater (U.S. Geological
Survey, 2012). Redistributing the large amounts of water used in fracking disrupts
aquatic life (DOI, 1979). Fracking processes also emit methane and other VOCs during
extraction (Brown, 2007). The EPA (2012e) is investigating impacts on drinking water
from the over 1,000 chemicals used in fracking. Nuclear energy for generating electricity
uses large amounts of water and discharges heavy metals, salts, and small amounts of
radioactive elements that affect aquatic life and radioactive waste in deep geological
facilities (EPA, 2013).
Regulations Related to Fleet Vehicles
Transportation fuel efficiency must improve 30.0% globally just to stabilize CO2
emission levels (Joint Transport Research Center, 2008). Corporate responsibility for
environmental issues evolved from reactive in the 1960s, to risk and cost avoidance in
1970s, to operational performance in 1980s, to lifecycle integrity in 1990s, to sustainable
development in 2000s, and to strategic advantage in 2010s (Fiksel, 2009). See Appendix
C, U.S. Environmental Regulations Affecting Fleet Trucks, for a chronological overview
of U.S. federal policies related to environmental issues from transportation fuels.

67
As of 2009, the EPA required GHG reporting by large emitters (EPA, 2012a).
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) require publically owned
companies to disclose risks of climate change from GHG effects (SEC, 2009). In
addition, 37 states mandate or suggest voluntary RPSs to increase the portion of
electricity generated from renewable sources to as much as 20.0% to 30.0% of total
electricity (EIA, 2012c).
Congress created the CAFE program in 1975 to increase fuel economy of cars and
light-duty trucks (NHTSA, 2010). The NHTSA sets standards for fuel economy and the
EPA calculates results by vehicle manufacturer. In 2011, CAFE standards expanded to
regulate fuel use by medium- and heavy-duty trucks. These standards phase in through
2016 at different dates and rates by fuel type and truck class. The new CAFE standards
will drive manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient trucks, such as EVs (McMorrin et
al., 2012). NHTSA (2010) estimated that if EVs replaced one third of the U.S. truck
fleet, average fuel consumption would improve from 9.0 to 13.5 MPG, and GHG would
decrease by 33.0%. While CAFE regulates energy in operating vehicles, future
legislation may regulate emissions from generating energy as well (McMorrin et al.,
2012).
Economics
Traditionally, economic returns were often the sole focus in corporate decision-
making (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Organizational and shareholder values aligned with
maximizing financial results while environmental and social issues primarily required
government regulations (Fiksel, 2009).

68
Holistic management argues that businesses operate for a higher purpose than
solely making money (Stubbs & Cocklin, 2008). Sustainable organizations track
performance using a TBL approach on environmental and social issues, as well as
economic profits. Short-term goals must balance with long-term commitments (Valenta,
2005). Upfront and operating costs are critical for budgeting even when a breakeven
point is less important under environmentally driven policies (Van Amburg & Pitkenen,
2012).
Nonetheless, Fiksel (2009) advises monitoring diminishing economic returns for a
cutoff in environmental and social spending since it is virtually impossible to eliminate
all risks. While encompassing environmental and social values, economic profits are still
critical for corporate sustainability and a crucial component in decision-making.
Deciding which financial ratios and models to use depends on the specifics of the
organization and decision variables.
Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Although upfront capital cost is critical to fleet operators for new vehicle
purchases, it is only one criterion for acquisition decision-making (Kilcarr, 2004).
Encompassing entire costs over each vehicle’s lifetime is a holistic approach. Lifecycle
costs provide appropriate economic analytics for comparing conventional vehicles with
alternative fueled vehicles.
Lifecycle cost analysis is an economic technique used in selecting the most
financially viable solution based on total costs over a project’s lifetime (Ashworth, 1989).
Difficulties in applying LCA include making proper estimates of an asset’s useful life,
component replacements, repair intervals and costs, discount rates, inflation rates, interest
69
rates, and taxes over the life of the asset. Lack of historical costs on new technology is an
issue. In addition, the effect of change in technology on the asset’s use is at risk; new
technology may replace the asset or components earlier than originally estimated.
Regardless of the best economical solution, social factors also affect decision-making.
ICEVs and EVs differ in cost structure in that EVs incur higher upfront costs, but
lower operating costs than ICEVs (McMorrin et al., 2012). LCA provides a common
measurement for comparing ICEV and EV costs, while also considering environmental
and social factors. Per PHH Arval (2012) survey of fleet operators, after duty
requirements for vehicle and cargo weight capacity, lifecycle issues were most important
in acquisition decision-making, as well as the capital cost, fuel economy, and
environmental impact of a vehicle. However, Toby (2011) warned that due to the
newness of EVs, some costs are unknown, such as lifetime maintenance, insurance, and
residual values. Beck (2009) argued for lower insurance costs on EVs due to on-board
communications providing appropriate driving measures, tracking systems reducing
threat of theft, safety features, reduced range providing more driver rest periods when
recharging, and reduced danger from lower amounts of on-board energy.
Capital costs. Upfront costs for fleet vehicles include costs for the vehicle itself;
any modifications to the vehicle, such as for CNG conversion; any additional components
to the vehicle, such as the battery for EVs; and infrastructure, such as refueling for CNG
or charging stations for EVs (Electrification Coalition, 2010; Johnson, 2010). Vehicle
costs vary greatly depending on class, size, weight, features, volume purchases, and
availability. Lease versus buy comparisons vary by company policy, company financial
70
structure, and financing options (Li & Ouyang, 2011). Environmental and social factors
are isolated or included as a component of capital costs (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Incremental costs of CNG equipment and conversion may range from $20,000 to
$50,000 for Class 4 to Class 7 trucks (Lyden, 2012). Hurst and Wheelock (2011) put this
cost closer to $10,000 per vehicle. Refueling infrastructure for CNG approximately
doubles that for EVs (Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.).
According to Smith Electric Vehicle, a 50-mile range EV truck cost $90,000
compared to a $60,000 diesel truck (Ramsey, 2011). Costs for EVs should decline as
volume production increases (Beck, 2009). Batteries are a significant cost of EVs.
CALSTART estimates average battery costs per kWh for EVs at $500-$600 by 2015,
$450 by 2020, and $300 by 2025 (Van Amburg & Pitkenen, 2012). However, Beck
(2009) noted a current wholesale cost of $300 per kWh. The Frost and Sullivan Research
Firm estimated battery replacement every four to five years at a cost of $7,000 to $10,000
for Class 6 to Class 8 hybrid trucks (Kar, 2011). Level 2 charging equipment costs
approximately $1,000 per station and installation costs approximately $2,500 - $6,000 for
one unit or $18,520 for 10 units (EPRI, 2011b).
Fuel costs. Fuel costs comprise the greatest portion of vehicle operating costs
(EPA, 2012a). McMorrin et al. (2012) identified major operating cost variables as
“vehicle taxes, subsidies (incentives), fuel and electricity use, battery lifetime, service
maintenance and repair, and length of ownership” (p. 5).
Petroleum. For the 20-year period from 1983 to 2002, crude oil prices were
relatively stable, averaging $20 per barrel, (World Bank, 2012). Since 2003, average oil
prices have more than tripled, reaching a high of $133 per barrel in July 2008. In
71
addition, prices were more volatile in the last 10 years. Oil prices averaged $101 per
barrel for December 2012. Figure 10 illustrates historical retail cost of gasoline and
diesel in dollars per gallon, including national average taxes, for 2003 to 2012.
Gasoline and Diesel Historical Prices

$5.00
$4.50
$4.00
$3.50
$3.00 Gasoline
$2.50
$2.00 Diesel
$1.50
$1.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 10. Gasoline and diesel historical retail cost per gallon in nominal dollars
(including taxes), 2003 – 2012. Created from EIA data, 2012d.
Historically, diesel and gasoline costs per gallon aligned; however, since 2007
diesel trended slightly higher than gasoline. Average annual increases over the 10-year
period were 12.7% for gasoline and 16.6% for diesel. Retail costs have more than
doubled since dropping in 2008.
Figure 11 illustrates forecasted retail cost of gasoline and diesel in dollars per
gallon, including taxes, from 2013 to 2024 per EIA (2013a).
$5.00 Gasoline and Diesel Forecasted Prices

$4.50
$4.00
Gasoline
$3.50
$3.00 Diesel
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 11. Gasoline and diesel forecasted retail cost per gallon in nominal dollars
(including taxes), 2013 – 2024. Created from EIA data, 2013a.
72
Although the forecast shows steady increases, gasoline and diesel costs are
subject to volatility, primarily due to the oligopoly control of oil and political uprisings
in the Middle East (Greene & Plotkin, 2011). The forecasted average annual increase is
2.6% for gasoline and 3.6% for diesel over the 12 years from 2013 to 2024 (EIA,
2013b). The forecasted retail prices in EIA’s 2013 Outlook Report declined from EIA’s
2012 Outlook Report by an annual average of 13.0% for gasoline and 11.5% for diesel
from 2013 to 2020.
Importing significant foreign oil creates an indirect social cost for the US.
Researchers at Oak Ridge estimate the cost of oil dependence to the U.S. economy for
combined wealth transfer and GDP losses (Davis et al., 2011). The cost of oil
dependence to the U.S. economy hit a high of $500 billion in 2008 before settling around
$300 billion in 2009 and 2010. Every $10 increase in the price per barrel of oil costs the
U.S. economy approximately $75 billion (EDTA, 2012a).
Compressed natural gas. Compressed natural gas generally costs less than half
the equivalent gallon of gas or diesel (EIA, 2012b). Although CNG costs historically
followed oil costs, they decoupled since new findings of natural gas in 2006 (Energy and
Environmental Consultants, 2012). Figure 12 illustrates historical industrial cost of
natural gas dollars per thousand cubic feet from 2003 to October 2012.
73
Natural Gas Historical Prices

$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 12. CNG historical industrial cost per thousand cubic feet in nominal dollars
(excluding taxes), 2003 – October 2012. Created from EIA data, 2012e.
This period shows fluctuations of over 300.0%, yet a fairly stable and downward
trend since 2010. Although prices declined an average of 3.1% annually over the 10-
year period, the average annual decline was 16.2% since hitting a high of $13.06 in mid-
2008. Costs in 2012 ended below those in 2003. Because of newfound reserves and
technologies, the US may operate as a net exporter of natural gas by 2016, further helping
to control CNG costs (EIA, 2012a).
Figure 13 illustrates forecasted industrial cost of CNG in dollars per thousand
cubic feet over the 12 years from 2013 to 2024 averaging 6.2% per annum.
Natural Gas Forecasted Prices

$14.00
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 13. CNG forecasted industrial cost per thousand cubic feet in nominal dollars
(excluding taxes), 2013 – 2024. Created from EIA data, 2013a.
74
Electricity. Historical electricity costs were relatively stable (EIA, 2012b). Uses
of electricity in the transportation sector include pipelines and light rail, while the
majority of truck fleet operators are in the commercial and industrial sectors (EIA, 1999).
Figure 14 illustrates historical costs of commercial and industrial electricity in cents per
kWh from 2003 to September 2012, per EIA (2012h). The average annual increase was
2.9% for the commercial sector and 3.5% for the industrial sector.
Electricity Historical Prices

$0.14
$0.12
$0.10
$0.08 Commercial
Industrial
$0.06
$0.04
$0.02
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Figure 14. Electricity historical cost per kWh in nominal cents per kWh in nominal
dollars (including taxes), 2003 – September 2012. Created from EIA data, 2012h.
The average annual increase in electricity prices is 2.1% for commercial sector
and 2.3% for the industrial sector through 2024 per EIA (2013a). Figure 15 illustrates
forecasted costs in cents per kWh for 2013 to 2024.
Electricity Forecasted Prices

$0.14
$0.12
$0.10
Commercial
$0.08 Industrial
$0.06
$0.04
$0.02
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Figure 15. Electricity historical cost per kWh in nominal cents per kWh in nominal
dollars (including taxes) 2013 – 2024. Created from EIA data, 2013a.
75
Maintenance costs. Scheduled preventive maintenance primarily includes tire
replacement for all vehicles and oil changes for vehicles with an ICE (NREL, 2002).
Additional planned costs are for inspections, tune-ups, transmission fluids, filters and
belts (Ramsey, 2011; Spitzley et al., 2004). Unscheduled maintenance may include costs
for road call service and for days out of service (NREL, 2002). Fleet managers should
consider historical records when estimating maintenance for new vehicles (NAFA, 2012).
Behind reliability, maintenance costs tied with fuel economy for the overall top
three priorities affecting buying decisions by fleet managers in a 2010 survey by Frost
and Sullivan (Kar, 2011). Mike Payette, Vice President for fleet operations at Staples,
estimated annual maintenance costs at $2,700 for their diesel trucks and $250 for their
electric trucks (Ramsey, 2011). Regenerative braking saves maintenance costs on EV
trucks compared to diesel trucks, lasting two to three times longer than on ICEVs (Beck,
2009). Maintenance on an eBox electric car was 8.0% that of a like-kind ICEV. In
addition, diesel trucks incur costs for exhaust cleaning, which EV trucks do not require
(Ramsey, 2011).
Per Automotive Fleet (2011), maintenance costs per mile for vehicles running less
than 24,000 miles per year approximate:
 full size van at $0.0042 for oil, $0.0042 for tires, and $0.0156 for unscheduled
repairs;
 light-duty truck at $0.0043 for oil, $0.0116 for tires, and $0.0189 for unscheduled
repairs; and
 sport/utility vehicles at $0.0039 for oil, $0.0028 for tires, and $0.0066 for
unscheduled repairs.
76
Residual value. Residual value is a truck’s worth at a specific point in time of
use (Ramsey, 2011). Residual value declines over time and use and represents resale
value, if any, at end of useful life. Fleet managers showed minimal attention to residual
value when buying or reselling heavy-duty trucks, per a 2010 survey by Frost & Sullivan
(Kar, 2011). Residual values are uncertain due to their new technology and no
precedence on CNG or EVs (Ramsey, 2011). McMorrin et al. (2012) anticipated strong
demand for used EVs, which helps maintain a higher residual value than conventional
vehicles. Crist (2012) also argued for EVs having higher residual values due to less wear
on electric motors than on ICEs. However, others have argued that advancing
technologies will reduce residual values of current EV models as they become antiquated
(Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
EV batteries below 80.0% capacity lose capability for primary vehicle use (Toby,
2011). However, residual value of these batteries exists for use in vehicles with shorter
routes or in need of less power, in grid stabilization, for energy storage, or in building
applications. Furthermore, a truck body achieves greater residual value with a battery
replacement.
Net present value. LCA requires a time value of money to net costs and benefits
for like comparisons of alternatives (Hanley & Spash, 2003). Future cash flows reduced
by the cost of money weigh less on current business decisions. Net present value (NPV)
represents the current worth of a future stream of cash flows (EPA & DOT, 2011). The
rate used in discounting the time value of money differs by organizations’ financial,
ownership, and risk structures; by organizations’ internal returns and opportunity costs;
and by external market rates and economic conditions over time (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
77
The White House Office of Management and Budgeting Circular A-4 recommends using
a discount rate of either 3.0% or 7.0% for federal projects, depending on term (EPA &
DOT, 2011).
Existing Models
Several models exemplify components of lifecycle costing. All of the models
include costs for initial vehicle, modifications, and additions to vehicle; operations; and
maintenance. Some consider refueling or recharging infrastructure costs while some
include residual value. Two of the models consider emissions, but do not address how to
evaluate decision-making. None addresses other quantitative or qualitative impacts from
environmental or social issues.
Argonne National Laboratory. DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne)
prepared a Lifecycle Analysis for Heavy Vehicles to evaluate the energy use and
emissions of various technologies of Class 8 trucks in 1998 (Gaines et al., 1998). The
increase in highway fuel used since 1973 was entirely due to trucking miles. The greatest
potential to decrease petroleum use and improve air quality was to find an alternative for
diesel fuel.
Class 8 trucks primarily serve long-haul highway routes (Gaines et al., 1998).
Argonne did not consider CNG or EVs due to the limited range these fuels provide. In
addition, bio-diesel lacks adequate supplies. Argonne did not consider the impact of fuel
wasted during idling. Emission assumptions were not definitive due to varying engine
design, operating conditions, and test procedures.
Argonne calculated and analyzed the lifecycle energy use and emissions of Class
8 trucks including production of vehicles, fuel processing, and operating fuel use.
78
Scenarios included various truck materials, truck designs, engine designs and operations,
and alternative fuels (Gaines et al., 1998). Argonne used its Greenhouse Gases,
Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation (GREET) model.
Argonne found that liquid natural gas (LNG) decreased petroleum use, but did not
save energy or decrease emissions (Gaines et al., 1998). Energy to produce vehicles was
negligible compared to energy used in operating fuel consumption. The most effective
means of decreasing GHG emissions from heavy-duty trucks was through improvements
in engine, drivetrain, aerodynamics, rolling resistance, and weight.
Idaho National Laboratory. DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
commissioned development of a Cost Benefit Analysis Modeling Tool for Electric vs.
ICE Airport Ground Support Equipment (GSE) to analyze economic payback and
emissions in 2007 (Morrow, Hochard, & Francfort, 2007). GSE includes baggage
trackers, belt loaders, and pushback tractors. Fuel costs are the highest operating cost of
ICE GSE. This model primarily benefits the airline industry and electric utilities.
The INL team collected data at four U.S. airports through onsite evaluation,
interviews, and review of existing data files (Morrow et al., 2007). The model includes
capital costs for purchase price, including battery pack; alteration costs to put in service;
and charging stations and installation costs. The model also includes expenses for fuel
costs and equipment and infrastructure maintenance, including battery replacement.
Users provided actual costs or assisted team members in developing detailed assumptions
through high-level data trees. The Federal Aviation Administration provided base
emission rates from an Emissions and Dispersion Model System. Other variables
included in this model were AC vs. DC systems, battery type, gas vs. diesel, equipment
79
life, equipment usage level, fuel rates, estimated costs escalation rates, weather, terrain,
and quantity of each equipment type. Assumed efficiency ratings were 85.0% on
conventional chargers and 90.0% on fast chargers.
The team ran sensitivity analyses on various scenarios for each of the four airports
(Morrow et al., 2007). INL found that equipment with the highest use and lower capital
costs had the quickest payback period for the incremental cost of electric GSEs. Capital
costs for electric GSE were high due to small production runs by equipment
manufacturers, while operating costs were very low. Proper sizing of the battery pack
was important in controlling capital costs. Slow chargers proved less flexible than fast
chargers.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Model 1. The DOE’s NREL
prepared a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology in 2006
(Simpson, 2006). NREL compared costs and benefits of PHEV, HEV, and ICEV based
on personal urban and highway miles driven in a mid-size sedan. NREL focused on the
incremental costs of PHEVs relative to reduced petroleum use.
PHEVs offer flexibility in running initial miles on all electric with liquid fuel used
only after exhausting electric charge (Simpson, 2006). PHEVs require greater battery
size and life, which increases initial costs. NREL’s model did not consider the
economics of tax incentives; reduced petroleum use on air pollution, GHG emissions, or
energy security; reduced maintenance; less time at gas stations and home charging
convenience; improved acceleration; green branding; or opportunities from battery
storage such as back up generation or V2G services. NREL acknowledged financial
benefits of battery leasing, but excluded them from the model.

80
NREL’s analysis covered cumulative economic costs over the vehicle lives
(Simpson, 2006). Costs included vehicle purchase costs and energy fuel costs. Break-
even in years occurred when the cumulative cost of the ICEV exceeded that of the PHEV.
The only benefit identified was the reduction in petroleum use.
Significant influential variables on cumulative cost included battery costs, fuel
costs, vehicle performances, and driving habits (Simpson, 2006). PHEVs with 20 miles
of battery range reduced petroleum use over 45.0%. PHEVs will viably replace ICEVs
when battery costs decline and/or petroleum costs increase.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Model 2. NREL created the Vehicle
and Infrastructure Cash-Flow Evaluation (VICE) model to review the potential viability
of CNG vehicles for fleets (Johnson, 2010). Johnson (2010) used the VICE model for
testing CNG in municipal fleets focused on improving quality of life for residents. CNGs
refueling at a central station ideally support circular routes of transit buses, school buses,
and refuse trucks. The model included capital costs, operating and maintenance costs,
and salvage costs at end of useful life.
The VICE model measures cash flow over the life of vehicles on a most probable
use base case and under various scenarios to test the impact of variables on NPV, as well
as on rate of return (ROR) and payback period (PP; Johnson, 2010). If the discounted
future cost savings exceed the current capital costs, the NPV is positive and the scenario
is financial feasible. ROR is the sum of discounted future cost savings divided by the
current capital costs. When ROR exceeds expected results for current capital costs spent
on alternative projects or rates at which the organization may borrow funds, the scenario
is financially viable. PP is the point at which the cumulative sum of discounted future
81
cost savings equals the current capital costs. When this period exceeds an expected or
standard period, the scenario is financially viable.
NREL concluded that transit or refuse fleets with more than 75 units generally are
resiliently profitable when diesel exceeds $2.25 per gallon and/or vehicle miles driven
exceed 26,000 per year (Johnson, 2010). Marginally profitable fleets were those of
school buses driven over 10,000 miles per year and transit and refuse with more than 30
but less than 75 units. CNG was not profitable for fleets with low annual fuel use, access
to low cost diesel, or a need for extensive CNG vehicle or infrastructure costs.
CALSTART E-Truck Task Force. CALSTART created its E-Truck Task Force
(E-TTF) to survey U.S. fleet operators, vehicle manufacturers, and suppliers regarding
EV barriers and needs; further define issues; conduct research; and develop an “E-TTF
Business Case Calculator” for determining EV payback (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).
The E-TTF included actual manufacturer data, fleet data, and fleet performance feedback.
The calculator is a tool for fleet operators to analyze their specific applications in
replacing ICEV with EV trucks.
The E-TTF’s analysis was the most economically comprehensive model found
(Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). However, it did not include battery leasing or V2G
options. Variables included were:
 Vehicle data - number of units, life, class, and daily range.
 ICEV and EV - capital cost, maintenance cost per mile, and escalation rates.
 ICEV - fuel rate per gallon.

82
 EV - charging power in kW, electricity costs per kWh, demand charges per kW,
infrastructure costs, electrical service upgrade cost per kW, load management
software cost, and contingency cost per vehicle.
 Battery – cost per kWh, size per kWh, and end of life value.
 Financial – cost of capital and incentives.
The model then calculates the incremental cost of EVs, payback period with and without
incentives, return on investment, and net present value. The E-TTF also provides
planning guidelines for fleet operators by size of fleet.
The E-TTF found that vehicle cost and daily energy use most significantly
affected results (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Benefits were valued in gallons of
petroleum saved per day. EV trucks were viable when driven the maximum miles per
day and days per week.
Center for Sustainable Systems. The University of Michigan sponsored an
Automotive Life Cycle Economics and Replacement Intervals study on the implications
of maintenance costs on consumer decision-making for replacing a passenger car
(Spitzley et al., 2004). The study considered the costs of a new automobile against the
increase in annual operating costs for maintenance, repairs, and insurance. Various
scenarios considered included diversified driving patterns. Although the study showed
the optimal replacement period for a passenger car as nearly 18 years, the authors
recognized owner desires for earlier replacements. The study acknowledged the impact
of energy and emissions by referral only.
NAFA. NAFA developed a Lifecycle Cost Analysis model to assist fleet
managers in financial decision-making for type of vehicle to purchase, replacement

83
timing, alternative fuel options, financing options, and outsourcing services (NAFA,
2012). NAFA’s LCA covers costs for net acquisition, fixed variables, operations,
personal use, and total lifecycle. Fleet data required prior to LCA include target months
in service, target replacement mileage, expected mileage per month, adjusted months in
service, daily mileage, annual/monthly interest rate, lease management fee, depreciation
rate, fuel cost per gallon, estimated personal use, cost of loaner vehicle, and insurance
costs.
NAFA (2012) acknowledged that costs differ by location. It warned of estimation
risks, particularly for the future of alternative fuels. Although many sources are available
for estimating ICEV maintenance costs, resale values, and so forth, alternative fuel
vehicles lack historical costs for accurate estimates. Every assumption carries risks and
opportunities to plan for changes, making documentation and sensitivity analysis
important. NAFA cautioned that older vehicles might cost more in maintenance, as well
as deflate driver morale and damage corporate image.
NAFA (2012) discussed the intangible advantages and disadvantages of HEVs to
include in an LCA decision. Advantages include fuel savings, reduced CO2 emissions,
improved organization image, higher resale values, and potential tax incentives.
Disadvantages include higher upfront cost, limited availability, higher insurance costs,
uncertain maintenance and repair costs, and potential safety issues.
The Climate Group. The Climate Group (TCG) developed a duty cycle and
whole life costs model to assist fleet decision makers (McMorrin et al., 2012). TCG
discussed battery-leasing opportunities to reduce upfront costs and risks, but did not
include them in its model. The TCG model included a Fleet Carbon Reduction Tool
84
(FCRT) that estimates carbon reductions for alternatives, but did not explain any impact
on the whole life cost results.
Inputs for the FCRT include vehicle type (e.g., passenger car, van, etc.), base and
increased mileage per day, average speed, urban or delivery cycle, current and estimated
future energy prices, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance costs, purchase costs,
charging time scenarios, estimated residual values, and other cost differentials (McMorrin
et al., 2012). The model calculates whole life cost differences from an ICE to an EV over
three, five, and seven years without including a cost of capital. The TCG model found
that company cars and urban cycle driving after five years were more profitable for EVs.
Social
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
acknowledged the impact of GHG emissions by developed countries on developing
countries. Although responsibilities and capabilities for environmental improvements
differ by country, all countries must cooperate to achieve change. Strategies should
promote research and consider economic and social responses. Corporate social
responsibility includes environmental impacts, cost reductions from energy efficiencies,
and legislative compliance for carbon reductions (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Stubbs and Cocklin (2008) identified points in considering social issues for
holistic management as:
 Understand stakeholders’ needs and expectations.
 Educate and communicate to stakeholders.
 Implement stakeholder consultation program.
 Obtain buy-in from internal and external stakeholders.

85
 Avoid prioritizing shareholder expectations above stakeholder benefits.
 Align stakeholder expectations.
Acknowledging social stakeholders means that corporations emitting GHG in developed
countries are accountable to people in developing countries for harsher effects due to
higher poverty levels and land loss from climate change (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
Developed countries should conserve use of common pooled resources, such as the
global supply of oil, for developing countries in per capita proportions (Spitzley et al.,
2004). In addition, current generations must be responsible for their actions to future
generations (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
Safety
Safety risks related to oil drilling include fire or explosion from heavily
combustible material use (Zeiger, 2013). Methane emitted from extracting natural gas
and coal is highly combustible (Moseman, 2010). Dangers to miners in mining for coal
used in electricity generation include rock falls, tunnel collapses, or firedamp explosions
(Walter, 2012).
Safety is a primary concern for fleet operators (Kar, 2011). Innovation in
trucking technologies improves safety, efficiencies, and profitability (NPTC, n.d.). Risk-
management tools include “electronic logs, onboard electronic recorders, tools to prevent
speeding and recording engine data” (NPTC, n.d., p. 21).
Health and Welfare
As of 2009, the EPA acknowledged that:
GHGs are the primary driver of climate change, which can lead to hotter,
longer heat waves that threaten the health of the sick, poor or elderly;
increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and other
86
respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of

Americans. (Milbourn, 2009, p. 1)
In its Framework for Air, Climate, and Energy Research Program, the EPA (2011)
warned of “… serious health and environmental challenges from air pollution and the
growing effects of climate change, both of which are intricately linked with current and
future energy options” (p. 2). Negative impacts from climate change on the environment
also threaten people’s livelihoods and welfare. Health impacts in the US related to air
pollution are estimated at “30,000 deaths, 330,000 hospital admissions, and 6.6 million
asthma attacks” per year (Lovins and Datta, 2006, p. 269).
A study of 34 Chinese cities showed that health impacts were better from EVs
than from ICEVs (Ji et al., 2011). Exhaust from ICEVs is smelly and toxic, putting
human health at risk (EPA & DOT, 2011). Long-term exposure to certain GHG affects
respiratory and cardiovascular systems, low birth rate, infant mortality, and cancer and
other toxic diseases.
Lead acid batteries used with ICE contain the most toxic metal (Beck, 2009).
Nickel used in hybrid batteries is more toxic than lithium used in EV batteries. While the
U.S. recycling rate for lead acid batteries is 98.0%, the expected recycling rate for more
valuable lithium approaches 100.0%.
EVs are not without health impacts. Production of components used in some EV
batteries involves occupational hazards from toxins in certain metals, chemistries, and
solvents (EPA, 2012d). EPA recommendations include reducing use of nickel and cobalt
metals, reducing all metal mass, using recycled battery components in the production of
new batteries, using a solvent-less manufacturing process, reducing energy use in
manufacturing, and improving product manufacturing efficiencies. In addition, wind

87
turbines used in generating electricity for charging EVs increase noise levels, obstruct
views, and create a strobe effect from shadow movements (Hopkins, 2010). Intermittent
supply of wind creates planning and use issues.
Fleet managers included safety, comfort and convenience, and driving experience
as distinguishing characteristics for vehicle buying decisions in a survey by Frost and
Sullivan (Kar, 2011). Truck drivers’ health, wellness, and well-being issues relate to the
vehicle cabin as a workplace. Factors identified in the survey for affecting the mind were
mood, stress levels, mental health, and sense of connectivity, optimism, attitude, security,
and safety. Factors affecting the soul were personal values, personal fulfillment, self-
image, and self-actualization. Factors affecting the body were sight, touch, smell, noise,
temperature, and wellness.
Drivers of EV trucks noted the vehicles were extremely pleasant to drive due to
the quiet, smooth, and relaxing ride from an electric motor compared to ICE (McMorrin
et al., 2012). NREL (2002) found that drivers and fleet personnel preferred EVs for
operations, although additional training was required for drivers and mechanics.
Additional social benefits of EVs include positive customer perception on corporate
branding. One stress factor related to EVs is range anxiety, a condition of drivers
concerned with running out of power prior to reaching a charging station (CAR, 2011).
Training
Proper job training promotes health and safety, as well as maximizing product
efficiency and return on investment (McMorrin, et al., 2012). Driver training is
particularly important for new technologies, such as in EV trucks. New areas for training
88
include proper driving techniques to maximize benefits of EVs, handling range issues for
refueling, and recharging policies for where and when to refuel.
Risk, Cost, Benefit Analysis
The first publically documented use of CBA in the US was in 1808 by the DOT
for water-related projects (Hanley & Spash, 2003). The U.S. Army Corp of Engineering
often used CBA to justify return on public spending for large projects, particularly
through the 1930’s and 1940’s. Budget Circular A-47 (A-47) issued in 1952 by the U.S.
Bureau of the Budget set conservative standards and procedures for project analysis prior
to Congressional vote (Hufschmidt, 2011). However, rescinded in 1962, A-4 primarily
emphasized economic benefits and overlooked secondary qualitative benefits. Individual
agencies adopted procedures that included secondary benefits specific to local
development. Various corporations and academics explored broader socioeconomic
issues for CBA in the 1950s and 1960s, including consumer issues, opportunity costs, and
environmental objectives. In addition, flexible discount rates and life terms represented
specific project factors.
According to Hanley & Spash (2003), CBA covers “defining the project,
identifying and quantifying impacts, calculating monetary valuation, discounting,
weighing, and sensitivity analysis” (p. 8). CBA provides a primarily quantitative view of
alternatives, while considering qualitative factors as well. Challenges to CBA include
making appropriate estimations, determining and applying all internal and external
variables, balancing historical impacts with potential future factors, and appropriately
weighing variables. Additional challenges in CBA for environmental factors include

89
“irreversibility, ecosystem complexity, institutional capture, and sustainability
considerations” (Hanley & Spash, 2003, p. 168).
Risk management has history in social development and war strategies (Bernstein,
1996). While considering historical events, risk analysis focuses on future possibilities
rather than mirroring the past. Risk analysis includes understanding and measuring risks,
and weighing consequences. Risk management implements actions to turn risks into
opportunities for growth and development and refines choices of alternatives for rational
decision-making.
Summary
Research for this study provided a myriad of data on the environmental,
economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits related to petroleum, CNG, or electric
operated fleet trucks and vans. Each fuel type comprised advantages and disadvantages
so that no one fuel type presented a perfect solution for fleets. EVs and battery
technologies continue to improve and support potential growth of EV trucks and vans for
fleet operations.
In several surveys, fleet managers stated the importance of acquiring vehicles
appropriate for the job and managing costs while improving the environment. However,
no existing models provided a holistic approach for making alternative fueled vehicle
decisions. The model in this study considers lifecycle costs with a triple bottom-line
approach to assist fleet managers in making appropriate vehicle and fuel choices.
90
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Analyzing the risks, costs, and benefits of the environmental, economic, and
social factors of electric vehicle (EV) fleet trucks compared to petroleum and compressed
natural gas (CNG) fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (ICEVs) required an
exploratory approach, primarily due to the novelty of EVs and the rise in environmental
responsibilities of fleet operators. Existing studies of EVs have primarily assessed
engineering innovation, while studies of greenhouse gases (GHG) have primarily
examined scientific environmental effects, and cost-benefit studies have generally
analyzed purely economic results. This study provided a holistic approach to analyze the
environmental, economic, and social factors in decision-making of fleet truck
acquisitions for EVs compared to petroleum and CNG ICEVs.
Research Design
This exploratory research used a case study approach of three fleet operators
under a mixed method design. Studying the qualitative and quantitative environmental,
economic, and social factors related to EVs compared to petroleum and CNG ICEVs
included analyzing their risks, costs, and benefits. The mixed method design measured
qualitative data from interviews with the participants’ fleet managers and quantitative
data from the participants’ fleet and financial information, as well as from literature and
third party sources. Finally, the data provided input for a cost template to assist in
vehicle acquisition decision-making.
Yin (2009) asserted that a case study is an empirical research method taking a
quantitative or qualitative approach. Qualitative research explores a phenomenon for
deep meaning and case studies are commonly practice-oriented (Creswell, 2007; Dul &
91
Hak, 2008). A study could follow a quantitative-only method using data from published
sources. However, using actual fleet operator data added credibility and reliability to this
study. Adding qualitative data provided a deeper analysis of the nonquantifiable factors.
Interviewing fleet operators added practical information, provided a richer understanding
of industry factors, and lent further credibility to results through triangulation of
literature, third-party data, and empirical data.
A case study makes an in-depth investigation of a contemporary phenomenon of
an individual unit, or common group of units, within their natural environment (Yin,
2009). Case studies require intensive analysis of the many variables through
triangulation of multiple sources of evidence. The holistic approach of a case study finds
meaningful characteristics in real life situations. A researcher performs in an engaging
manner, yet takes care not to influence behavior in the case.
In a case study, the research focuses more on current than historical events.
Exploring alternative perspectives provides sufficient evidence (Yin, 2009). An
exploratory type of case study is useful in subsequent research (Hancock & Algozzine,
2006; Yin, 2009). This study provides an empirical template for research expansion as
technologies evolve for EVs, batteries, vehicle-to-grid (V2G), and other advanced fuel
types, and as understanding and measuring advances of the effects of GHG.
Where an instrumental design focuses on a single case in order to understand a
theory or problem, this exploratory study used an intrinsic design to focus on the case
itself as a specific situation in order to prepare the model for use by other fleet operators.
Through a questionnaire, this study examined each fleet operator’s perspective on

92
acquisitions, costs, and environmental and social responsibilities. Combining the
participants’ data provided input for the base case lifecycle cost template.
Processes for case studies include extensive data collection and holistic analysis
of the entire case (Creswell, 2007). This study involved vast amounts of data collected
from the participants, fleet industry associations, manufacturers, suppliers, government,
and other third party published documents. The risks, costs, and benefits analysis of the
environmental, economic, and social factors of EVs, petroleum-fueled ICEVs, and CNG-
fueled ICEVs provided a holistic view for vehicle acquisitions. Sensitivity analysis
explored alternative perspectives.
Reporting research findings includes a thorough description of the case and a
synthesis of information into related themes, meaningful findings, and lessons learned
(Creswell, 2007; Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Due to vast information, in-depth
analysis, and subjective findings, Hancock and Algozzine (2006) noted the importance of
confirming findings before issuing a final report. This study confirmed reported results
through internal and external data collection, analysis, and confirmation of findings with
the participants and industry experts.
Challenges of case studies include determining what case or cases to study,
deciding the number of cases, researching availability of in-depth information, and
creating specific boundaries of space and time for the cases (Creswell, 2007). This case
study explored three established and experienced fleet operators in-depth and confirmed
findings with other operators. Research included extensive data collection from myriad
of sources, using the most current data available and extrapolating or prorating when only
historical references were available.

93
The researcher compiled data from participants, literature, manufacturers,
suppliers, and market data into a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). Hanley and Spash (2003)
defined costs as negative impacts from a project and benefits as positive impacts. Risks
measured potential future costs by probability and severity. The lifecycle cost analysis
(LCA) calculated lifecycle costs for assets, operating expenses, interest expense, and
income tax benefits on a net present value (NPV). Including acquisition costs precluded
the need for depreciation expense. Environmental costs included GHG costs per ton.
The researcher identified and weighed social costs and benefits as well.
Participants
The population from which to select participants for this case study consisted of
private fleet operators of commercial trucks and vans in the United States (US). For
practical EV analysis, participant selection considered fleets that operated trucks
regionally, generally drove less than 100 miles per day, and garaged at a central location.
The researcher selected three participants with differing duty cycles and operations.
Selection
Appendix D, Top 300 Fleet Operators in the US, summarizes data on the largest
300 fleet operators of cars and trucks published by Automotive Fleet (2012). The
researcher selected two participants from this group based on professional experience
with the fleets and knowledge of the fleet’s alternative fuel interests. The researcher
selected the third participant to represent a smaller fleet operator. The participants had
varying experiences with alternative fuels. The researcher believed the participants
generally represented the population of fleet operators in vehicle duties, operations, and
decision-making processes.
94
Access and Relationship
The researcher had limited business relationships with the fleet managers of the
two larger participants. As an external, nonowner corporate board member of the third
participant, the researcher was familiar with this participant’s businesses, operations, and
cultures. The participants’ experience with the researcher provided them confidence in
the researcher’s interests and professionalism. The researcher and participants
communicated well and held mutual respect for each other, recognizing each other’s
priorities and timelines. The participants acknowledged the benefit from the research for
their organizations, as well as for the fleet industry.
Privacy Protection
The researcher assured the fleet managers of confidentiality of all organizational
data and interview responses. The researcher has all paper and electronic documents
from participants kept in locked files. The researcher will not identify participant data by
name or description without the participant’s approval.
Instruments
Fleet Data Request
The researcher created a data request list included as Appendix E, Fleet Data
Request. Participants provided fleet data by vehicle type and duty cycles. The researcher
reviewed participants’ documented actual and estimated costs for reliability, validity,
origin, and propriety for use in the study.
Interviews
As a follow-up to the data request, the researcher provided participant fleet
managers with interview questions included as Appendix F, Participant Interview

95
Questions. The interview document included short synopses on environmental,
economic, and social issues to provide participants context for the research. This in-
depth interview further explored the participants’ fleet operations, qualitative
perspectives, and expectations for fuel alternatives. Questions covered participants’
views on probability, severity, and responsibilities for the environmental, economic, and
social risks, costs, and benefits related to fleet information.
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Template
The researcher collected costs and other financial data from participants,
literature, manufacturers, suppliers, and other third parties. The researcher created
Microsoft Excel templates and input data to calculate the NPV lifecycle costs of
petroleum ICEVs, CNG ICEVs, and EVs based on combined participant data. The
detailed templates are included as Appendices I and J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Assumptions for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks, respectively.
Risk, Cost, Benefit Analysis Model
The researcher identified and collected supporting valuations for the risks, costs,
and benefits of the environmental, economic, and social factors of petroleum ICEVs,
CNG ICEVs, and EVs. Sources for this information include the fleet participants,
literature, manufacturers, suppliers, and other third parties. The researcher summarized
the environmental, economic, and social factors in Tables 35, 36, and 37, respectively.
Each table includes risk, cost, and benefit categories valued quantitatively by fuel type.
The researcher then calculated an overall rating by fuel type in each table.
96
Procedures
Hanley and Spash (2003) provided structure for a CBA in eight stages, or steps.
The researcher broadened these steps to include risk evaluation in addition to costs and
benefits for this study. In addition to gathering quantitative data, tasks included obtaining
qualitative information through interviews with participants. Notes include results for
completed tasks for each step below.
A researcher’s personal experience or beliefs regarding a study, participant, or
data can create bias (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Hanley and Spash (2003) warned of
biased estimates of value resulting from strategic bias, design bias, mental account bias,
and hypothetical market error. A researcher needs to bracket out, or set aside, personal
views to avoid tainting the findings (Creswell, 2007).
Validity issues under a case study approach include adequately defining the
project, making sound assertions, providing a sense of story, obtaining sufficient raw
data, and triangulating observations (Creswell, 2007). The researcher takes the role and
view as an advisor, acting reflectively. Studies are quality tested for thorough data
collection, appropriate framing and approach, use of single focus, adequate detail
methods, appropriate and complete analysis, persuasive writing, accurate history, and
ethical procedures.
Figure 16 summarizes the flow of Hanley and Spash’s (2003) eight steps for
performing a cost benefit analysis as related to this study. These procedures included the
researcher creating templates for fleet data request, interview questions for fleet
managers, NPV for LCA, and final risk, cost, benefit analysis. Fleet operator
97
participants, vendors/suppliers, and lessors provided input data. The final analyses tested
whether EVs were environmentally, economically, and socially viable.
Flow of Procedures to Test Hypotheses
Researcher Fleet Operator Vendors Lessor
4a.
1a. Define
Develop
problem 4b
fleet data
statement
request
1b. Define 4c.
purpose Develop
Fleet data
statement NPV
LCA
1c. Develop 4d. Sort and Vehicle,

Lease
hypothesis analyze data supply
terms
costs
1d. Create
4f. Input
research 4e
data
questions 5a.
Develop
6a. Set 5b
2a. Perform interview
discount questions
lit review
rate
5c.
Develop
7a, 7b. risk, cost, Interview
2b. Select
Apply net benefit data
participants
value template
2c, 2d, 2e.
Identify 5d. Assess Research Research
8a. Modify
risks, costs, risks and data data
variables
benefits benefits
3a. Identify 8b. Identify 8c. Input

relevant critical risk, costs,
data variables benefit data
8d. Analyze
risks, costs,
benefits
Are EVs
No environmental-
ly viable?
Yes
Are EVs
Null hypothesis is true No economically
viable?
Yes
No Are EVs
socially viable?
Yes
Hypothesis is true
Figure 16. Flow chart of processes used in testing hypothesis summarizes the flow of
Hanley and Spash’s (2003) eight steps for performing a cost benefit analysis.
98
Step 1: Define the Project
Parameters of a study begin with determining the known aspects of the project
being analyzed (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
1a. Define problem statement. The study’s problem statement was “How can
EV trucks be a viable alternative to fossil-fueled trucks in fleet operations?”
1b. Define purpose statement. The study’s purpose statement was “Provide a
holistic approach to EV purchase decision-making.”
1c. Develop hypothesis. The researcher’s hypothesis was that under certain
conditions, EVs are a viable alternative to fossil-fueled trucks.
1d. Create research questions. The study’s research questions were:
1. What are the environmental risks, costs, and benefits of EVs compared to fossil-
fueled vehicles?
2. What are the economic risks, costs, and benefits of EVs compared to fossil
fueled-vehicles?
3. What are the social risks, costs, and benefits of EVs compared to fossil-fueled
vehicles?
Step 2: Identify Project Impacts
Exploring the impact of all resources used, impact on people, and impact from
additions and displacements to the environment determines the magnitude of the project
(Hanley & Spash, 2003). The literature, researcher’s experience and knowledge,
participant data and interviews, and third party information facilitated in identifying
project impacts. Identifying data for project impact by type, source, method, and scope
supported data collection and valuation.

99
Type refers to how data is collected, regardless of who prepares it (Siegel, 2003).
The researcher controls and obtains primary data, whereas third parties such as other
researchers, government agencies, or corporations collect and report secondary data.
Source refers to who prepares data, regardless of how the data is collected. Scope
determines the emphasis placed on data for consideration in valuing and is assessed based
on immediacy of impact, extent of impact, strength of estimable amounts, and level of
importance to fleet managers.
However, identifying the project impacts is more important than categorizing
them. Some of the data applied to more than one category (e.g., the decreasing supply of
petroleum has environmental, economic, and social impacts), in which case the
researcher attempted to classify in the most pervasive category on a consistent basis.
Issues may be listed in more than one category where consideration for diverse
implications exist (e.g., GHG have a relatively minor economic impact based on current
market trading prices and have a potentially significant environmental impact based on
unknown effects of climate change). The absence of a negative issue did not constitute a
benefit (e.g., the absence of noise made by a petroleum vehicle was not a benefit of an
EV). Listing the same issue as negative in one segment and as a benefit in another
segment duplicates measuring the impact. For this study, the research questions framed
the project impacts.
2a. Perform literature review. The researcher obtained articles on the issues of
economic, energy, environment, fleet operations, and fuel relevant to parameters
determined in Step 1; perused articles and noted relevant facts; researched relevant data
issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.

100
Environmental Protection Agency, and related agencies; and reviewed fleet industry
websites and periodicals for relevant data.
2b. Select fleet operators for participating in case study. Appendix D provides
the Top 300 commercial fleet operators in the US as reported by Automotive Fleet
(2012). Other sources, such as fleet industry associations, professional knowledge, and
web searches, from which to select smaller fleets may be used. Based on business
experience, knowledge, and relationships, the researcher performed a purposive selection
of three fleet operators that fairly represented the population, were willing to participate,
and were accessible for the study. The researcher contacted fleet managers by email and
phone, explaining the study, requesting their participation, and assuring them
confidentiality of any information received. The researcher perused participant websites
and press releases for corporate vision and mission statements, strategies on alternative
vehicles, extent of company’s environmental and social causes, and any experience with
alternative fuels.
The participants represented the food and beverage and manufacturing industries.
One company ranked in the top 20 U.S. fleets by size, one in the middle of the ranking by
size, and one was too small for the list. In total, the three companies managed over
38,000 trucks and vans in the US.
Steps 2c through 2e identify data for environmental, economic, and social risks,
costs, and benefits for EVs, petroleum ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs. Data categorization
included type, source, method, and scope as defined above in the Step 2 introduction.
Again, primary data type included data prepared by researcher for this study and
secondary data type referred to data obtained from a third party that was previously
101
prepared for other purposes. Scope referred to value placed on data determined by its
impact. Tables 10, 11, and 12 list the risks, costs, and benefits issues generally related to
more than one vehicle type first and then for issues specific to a vehicle type.
2c. Identify the environmental risks, costs, and benefits for EVs, petroleum
ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs. Table 10 categorizes environmental data by type, source,
method, and scope.
Table 10
Data Related to Research Question 1 (What are the environmental risks, costs, and
benefits of EVs compared to fossil-fueled vehicles?)
Data Type Source Method Scope

Risks GHG Secondary Literature Estimated Less
Climate, Secondary Literature Documented Less
topography
Runoff Secondary Literature Historic Less
Supply Secondary Literature Estimated Greater
Costs GHG Secondary Publications Calculated Greater
Specific to Petroleum
Risks Other air Secondary Literature Estimated Less
pollutants
Spills, leaks Secondary Literature Historic Less
Specific to Electric
Risks Lithium use Secondary Literature Estimated Less
Nuclear leaks Secondary Literature Historic Less
Supply of coal Secondary Literature Estimated Less
Benefits Renewable Secondary Literature Estimated Less
energy storage
Support grid Secondary Literature Estimated Less
regulation
102
2d. Identify the economic risks, costs, and benefits for EVs, petroleum
ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs. Table 11 categorizes economic data by type, source, method,
and scope. Incentives include federal, state, or municipal government rebates or tax
credits provided for using alternative fuels.
Table 11
Data Related to Research Question 2 (What are the economic risks, costs, and benefits of
EVs compared to fossil-fueled vehicles?)

Risks Fuel prices Secondary Literature Estimated Greater
Lease costs Secondary Literature Estimated Greater
Political Secondary Literature Estimated Less
Costs Equipment Primary Manufacturers Documented Greater
Incentives Secondary Governments Documented Greater
Distribution Primary; Suppliers; Documented; Greater
Primary Participants Documented
Lease terms Primary Lessors Estimated Greater
Fuel price Secondary Participants; Averaged Greater
Publications
Mileage Primary Participants Calculated Greater
Maintenance Primary; Participants; Historical; Greater
Secondary Literature Estimated
Discount rate Secondary Participants Estimated Less
Residual value Primary; Participants; Estimated Less
Secondary Literature
Useful life Primary Participants Estimated Less
Specific to CNG
Costs Conversion Primary Participants Historic Greater
Specific to Electric
Risks Capacity Secondary Literature Historic; Greater
Estimated
Highway fuel tax Secondary Literature Estimated Less
Range, load Secondary Literature Estimated Greater
Costs Battery Primary Manufacturers Documented Less
replacement
Benefits Grid stabilization Secondary Utilities Estimated Less
Off peak revenue Secondary Literature Estimated Less
103
2e. Identify the social risks, costs, and benefits for EVs, petroleum ICEVs,
and CNG ICEVs. Table 12 categorizes social data by type, source, method, and scope.
Table 12
Data Related to Research Question 3 (What are the social risks, costs, and benefits of
EVs compared to fossil-fueled vehicles?)

Risks Vehicle safety Secondary Literature Historic Less
Health Secondary Literature Historic Less
Costs Refueling time Primary; Participants; Calculated Less
Secondary Literature Calculated
Driver Secondary Literature Historic Less
discomfort
Costs Noise, smell Secondary Literature Historic Less
Sharing common Secondary Literature Estimated Less
pool resources
Costs Training Primary Participants Calculated Less
Benefits Grid reliability Primary Participants Estimated Less
Step 3: Identify Which Impacts are Economically Relevant
Environmental and social impacts are relevant in CBA and decision-making
(Hanley & Spash, 2003).
3a. Determine which data are quantifiable and relevant to fleet operators. In
addition to specific cost data, the researcher determined which risks and benefits were
estimable based on probability and severity. GHG were included in environmental costs
as estimation for CO2 cost per ton. Other potentially quantifiable risk and benefit data
included renewable energy storage, spills/leaks, highway fuel tax, fuel prices, training,
deaths, and health. Although off-peak revenue from growth of EVs was potentially
quantifiable, it is a benefit to utility companies rather than fleet operators and therefore
was not included.

104
Step 4: Quantify Relevant Impacts
Quantifying cost and benefit flows not readily specified requires estimation using
probabilities and expected values (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
4a. Develop participant fleet data request. The researcher compiled a list of
quantitative data required from participants in a Microsoft Excel file with a requested due
date. See Appendix E for the study’s Fleet Data Request.
4b. Submit data request to participants. The researcher emailed the Fleet Data
Request as outlined in Appendix E to fleet managers, and answered questions to clarify
issues from participants.
4c. Develop LCA templates in Excel. The researcher input data for fleet duty
cycle, including number of units, average daily miles, days operated per week, weeks
operated per year, and vehicle average useful life into templates created in Microsoft
Excel as Appendices I and J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 and Class
6 Trucks, respectively. For each fuel type, the researcher developed costs for acquisitions
of vehicles and related equipment, conversions, incentives, residual values, fuel,
maintenance, property tax, and interest. In addition, income tax benefits included
expenses for asset depreciation, operations, and interest, multiplied by an average
corporate tax rate.
4d. Sort and analyze participant fleet data. After objectively observing,
analyzing, and interpreting fleet data so as not to influence the feasibility analysis, the
researcher aggregated data subject to confidentiality between participant and researcher
and valued accordingly to avoid revealing participant or disclosing proprietary data. The
researcher then compared data from literature, study participant, and third party sources;
105
compared data between fuel types for completeness, accuracy, and valuation; and
determined appropriate value by averaging. Ignoring any outlier data outside of a
reasonable range of other data, the researcher consolidated participant fleet data and
sorted by the duty cycle independent variables that met minimal criteria of EVs. Figure
17 illustrates the researcher’s model for sorting variables from the fleet duty cycle for
potential EV qualification.
Obtain
fleet data
Sort by
Class 1
GVWR
to 7 data
class
Sort by fuel Petro

type data
< 100
Sort by
miles
miles / day
data
Sort by Central EV
garage garage buy
location data potential
Calculate > 5,000

hours / hours
year data
Map for EV lease

ISO/RTO potential
Figure 17. Model to sort participant fleet data for EV criteria.
4e. Obtain manufacturer and supplier costs. The researcher contacted dealers
and manufacturers for sales prices of electric, petroleum, and CNG vehicles; obtained
supporting documentation with vehicle specifications and prices; and discussed any
106
variation in pricing for volume purchases for fleet operators, documenting all information
in a field notebook. The researcher contacted suppliers for sales prices of battery
charging equipment by charging levels and CNG refueling stations, and obtained
supporting documentation.
4f. Input relevant data in LCA templates. The researcher input data in
appropriate cells of the templates in Appendices I and J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis
Assumptions for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks, respectively, verifying input for propriety
and reviewing calculations for reasonableness.
Step 5: Value Relevant Effects
Valuing impacts in a common measure allows for appropriate comparisons
between variables (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
5a. Develop participant interview questions. The researcher determined
qualitative data required from participants and created objective interview questions for
fleet managers to avoid bias. Such questions explored the participants’ experience and
strategies for alternative fueled vehicles, value that the organization placed on alternative
fuels, the organization’s funding and ancillary revenue strategies, and the fleet managers’
views on probability and severity of environmental, economic, and social risks. The
researcher considered issues that potentially improve environmental and social quality as
benefits, and those that potentially reduce quality as a risk. The researcher included a
cover letter and introductory information to each section, numbering questions
sequentially. See Appendix F for the study’s Participant Interview Questions.
5b. Interview participants. Two participants completed the interview questions
independently and emailed to researcher. The researcher followed up with the third
107
participant to ask the fleet manager the interview questions included in Appendix F,
Participant Interview Questions, by phone. The researcher took notes and asked
additional probing or clarifying questions as appropriate.
5c. Develop risk, cost, benefit model. The researcher developed a matrix for
analyzing each of the environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits of
petroleum, CNG, and EVs.
5d. Assess risks and benefits. The researcher averaged participant fleet
managers’ responses for each risk by quantifying “Low” responses as 1, “Medium”
responses as 2, and “High” responses as “3.” Multiplying the numeric probability by the
numeric severity produced one value for each risk. The researcher assigned this number
to each applicable fuel type and summed the total assigned values by fuel type.
This study attempted to value environmental and social impacts within a range of
reasonable economic valuations. Some qualitative valuations may not be specifically
quantified, but still have economic relevance. For example, social costs from air
pollutants include impact on health and welfare, which have significant costs that are not
reasonably estimable.
Step 6: Discount Cost and Benefit Flows
Converting cost and benefit flows into present value provides comparable
valuation of variables over space and time (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
6a. Determine appropriate discount rate. The discount rate for NPV of the
LCA may be specific to an organization representing cost of capital when financed by
any combination of debt or equity, or a set hurdle rate when deciding between investment
opportunities. Alternatively, industry averaging uses a current external economic rate.

108
The researcher considered vehicle useful life, macroeconomic and financial market
conditions, industry standards, risks, and other market factors.
Step 7: Apply Net Value
Netting present value of costs and benefits provides comparable data between
alternatives (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
7a. Determine formula for calculating NPV. The formula for the LCA adds the
vehicle acquisition costs, conversion costs, battery costs, and battery replacement costs;
less incentives and residual values; less the present value of operating costs and interest
expenses over the vehicle useful life, less the present value of income tax benefits.
Equation 1 represents the NPV of the LCA calculation:
12
1 5, 10 1 12 ∑ (C + F - T) t
NPV = AC + BR RV +
1+i 1+i t =0 (1 + i )t
Where:
NPV Net present value of cash inflows less cash outflows.
AC Acquisition costs including vehicle, conversions, batteries, and fuel
equipment; less incentives
BR Battery replacement cost
RV Residual value
N Useful life of vehicle in years
C Relevant operating costs
F Interest expense
T Income tax benefit
t Year
i Discount rate (1)
Net present value formula represents the vehicle acquisition costs, less incentives, plus
the present value of battery replacement costs, less the present value of residual values,
less present value of operating costs and interest expense, plus the present value of
109
income tax benefits. This formula assumes battery replacement every five years and a
vehicle useful of 12 years.
7b. Apply NPV formula. The researcher applied the NPV formula in the LCA
templates from Appendices I and J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 and
Class 6 Trucks, respectively, pulling data from input cells. The researcher reviewed
results for reasonableness and tested for accuracy.
Step 8: Compute Sensitivity Analysis
Testing NPV in the LCA results by changing variable amounts and timing to
determine most sensitive variables and potential alternative outcomes illustrates
parameters for impact of variables (Hanley & Spash, 2003).
8a. Modify values for variables within reasonable ranges. This study includes
ability for sensitivity analysis in the lifecycle cost templates from Appendices I and J,
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks, respectively. The
researcher tested several scenarios by increasing and decreasing each variable by 10.0%,
then reviewed and noted the effect on the NPV after each isolated change. The primary
variables to test for sensitivity to NPV in this study included daily miles driven, on-site
versus off-site fueling, number of vehicles, kWh per mile per ton, battery costs and life,
charger costs, fuel costs, discount rate, and mileage rate.
8b. Identify which variables create the greatest change in NPV by fuel type.
The researcher assessed which variable changes had the greatest impact on NPV and
identified these as critical data. The researcher summarized the range of variables and
impact on the NPV in the LCA, analyzing various scenarios.

110
8c. Input data in the risk, cost, and benefit model. The researcher input
variables in the matrices for the environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and
benefits by petroleum, CNG, and EVs.
8d. Assess total risks, costs, and benefits by fuel type. Based on values given
for risks, benefits, and costs, the researcher determined which scenarios balance the least
amount of risk, least NPV cost, and greatest benefits. The researcher compared scenarios
from the sensitivity analyses and identified under what scenarios that EVs produced a
balance of lower risks, lower costs, and greater benefits than petroleum or CNG vehicles.
Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations
Generalization applies results of one group to the entire theoretical population
(Dul & Hak, 2008). Generalizability issues in this case study could occur from specifics
on any one of the fleet participants. Inferential research allows for generalization by
extending beyond the specific group (Hancock & Algozzine, 2006). Yin (2009) argued
that case studies may consider generalizing. Researchers must carefully consider case
study results for applying to the general population, in this case, to all fleet operators.
Obtaining actual data from a group of participants allowed for triangulation of
data from specific fleets, literature, and other third parties. The researcher selected
participants that appeared to represent the population of fleet operators. The researcher
took care in interpreting data for objectivity and generalization. Participants, third
parties, and the researcher’s experience validated data.
Assumptions in the LCA models included:
 Fuel costs increase in the future.
 V2G is viably operational.

111
 Lessors exist for EV leasing or fuel contracting.
 Right sizing battery for duty cycle and upgraded to nearest 10kWh for
manufacturers’ standard sizing.
 Level 2 chargers are adequate for fleet operators.
 Upgrades to electric infrastructure are available at reasonable costs.
 Federal regulations extend incentives for alternative fueled vehicles and fueling
equipment.
Further assumptions in the risk, cost, and benefit models included:
 Natural gas is not sustainable.
 GHG emissions are bad and have an associated cost.
 Changes to earth’s structure are bad.
 Storage of renewable energy is available on EV batteries.
 Increases in renewable energy sources will meet increased demand in electricity
from population growth and EV use.
 Charging EVs at night uses excess electricity rather than requiring additional
generation of electricity.
 Foreign countries providing oil continue as a national threat to the US.
 Political pressure artificially reduces gas prices in the US.
 ICEVs mileage continues to improve.
 Petroleum, CNG, and EVs have equal safety issues in sourcing and distribution.
 Demand for oil increases in developing countries.
The model excludes assumptions for highway or road tax for EVs and findings of
significant new sources of easily extractable oil.

112
Lifecycle cost analysis covers initial, recurring, and end costs (Ashworth, 1989).
Measuring in NPV provides a clean and simple comparison of initial and future cash
outlays among alternatives for decision-making. Other financial measures, such as return
on investment or payback period, view only the incremental cost of alternatives as an
investment and the incremental savings as the return. Generally, commercial fleet trucks
are part of an organization’s operations and therefore classified as operating assets with
operating costs, as opposed to investments with returns. In addition, viewing only a
portion of the acquisition and operating costs does not provide a complete analysis.
Reducing the numerator and denominator could distort the return rate as not being
comparable to an internal hurdle rate. Alternatively, analyzing the total risks, costs, and
benefits for environmental, economic, and social issues provides a holistic view with
qualitative and quantitative implications.
Collecting data across alternative vehicle types and from various sources in
various regions on a similar time period was challenging in this study. The researcher
attempted to normalize costs across time, space, and sources. Extensive variables such as
vehicle class, miles driven, routes, number of stops, geography, weather, road conditions,
local utility rates, and so forth created many scenarios for analyzing. The study analyzed
a number of scenarios that represented a significant portion of fleet profiles.
Summary
This exploratory case study applied a mixed method approach. The research used
an intrinsic analysis to avoid bias and generalization risks. Processing the extensive data
collection included triangulation and critical review for validity, objectivity, and
propriety.
113
Instrumentation included data requests and interviews with the three fleet
operators. Data verification included triangulation with literature and third party
information. Quantifying environmental, economic, and social risks used average
probability and severity ratings by participants. The LCA templates included known and
estimable costs in a quantitative approach. Each benefit counted as one without weighing
individual impact. The final model was a summary of risks, costs, and benefits of
environmental, economic, and social issues with petroleum, CNG, and EVs for decision-
making.
Although this study attempted to quantify risks and benefits, they are subject to
broad interpretation. Each fleet operator must assess risks and benefits specific to their
organization, goals, industry, and timing. Due to differentiation of risks and benefits,
decision-making should include qualitative assessments as well.

114
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
This exploratory case study used a mixed method design of qualitative and
quantitative data for holistic analysis. Qualitative data from participants included the
companies’ profile on use of alternative fuels and the fleet managers’ input on the
environmental, economic, and social risks of petroleum, compressed natural gas (CNG),
and electric vehicles (EVs). Quantitative data from participants covered the companies’
fleet truck data and duty cycles in creating a lifecycle cost analysis (LCA).
This chapter includes summaries of participants’ qualitative and quantitative data,
averaged or estimated costs from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) or suppliers,
and findings from the analyses. The LCA covered multiple scenarios for effect on net
present value (NPV) of lifecycle costs by fuel type. The researcher’s interpretation of the
analyses provided meaning for significant changes to the NPV for each scenario. The
summary of findings includes the risk, cost, benefits analyses for environmental,
economic, and social factors.
Research Questions
The problem studied in this research was the environmental, economic, and social
risks, costs, and benefits of fleet trucks fueled by petroleum, CNG, and electrically
charged batteries. As presented in Chapter One, the research questions addressed in this
study were:
1. What are the environmental risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to
fossil-fueled trucks?
2. What are the economic risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to fossil-
fueled trucks?
115
3. What are the social risks, costs, and benefits of EV trucks compared to fossil-
fueled trucks?
The hypothesis of this study was that EVs are an environmentally, economically, and
socially viable alternative to internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) for commercial
fleets of trucks and vans.
Presentation of Results
Participants in the study were three companies, which operated internal truck
fleets for distribution of proprietary goods. Based on sales and territory covered, one
participant was a large company, one a medium-sized company, and one a small
company. Two of the participant companies were in the food and beverage distribution
business and one was a manufacturing company. One participant company was
experimenting with EVs, another with CNG, and the third with hybrid vehicles. The fleet
managers of the participant companies had varying degrees of experience with alternative
fuels, from one with extensive knowledge of EVs, one with minimal experience of
alternative fuels, and the third with virtually no experience with alternative fuels.
The researcher summarized qualitative data with paraphrasing to limit
identification of participant companies. One participant provided answers orally through
telecommunications while the researcher noted responses as planned in the Methodology
chapter; however, the other two participants wrote their answers to the interview
questions at their convenience and submitted to the researcher by e-mail. For quantitative
data, one participant company provided a profile on each fleet vehicle, including long
haul, off-road, and inactive vehicles, which the researcher sorted out. One participant
provided fleet data in averages per truck gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) class as
116
defined by the United States (U.S.) Department of Transportation (DOT). The third
participant provided data on a sample of its fleet trucks. For reference, Table 13
summarizes truck classes per DOT ratings as previously detailed in Table 2.
Table 13
GVWR for Truck Classes
Class Weight in Pounds

1 < 6,001
2 6,001 to 10,000
3 10,001 to 14,000
4 14,001 to 16,000
5 16,001 to 19,500
6 19,501 to 26,000
7 26,001 to 33,000
8 >33,000
Note. Adopted from Davis et al., 2011.
Qualitative data analyses included quantifying participant responses to identified
risks, calculating a risk factor for each, and assigning the risk factor to each vehicle type.
Quantitative data analyses used a NPV of lifecycle costs for acquisition, operations, and
disposition of vehicles fueled by petroleum, CNG, and electricity. Analyses
interpretation includes a summary of the environmental, economic, and social risks,
costs, and benefits of the various vehicles.
Qualitative Data
The researcher segmented qualitative data from the participant interviews by
overview, environmental, economic, and social questions. The overview section
provided an understanding of participants’ experience with alternative vehicles. General
questions included response choices of “Not at all,” “Somewhat,” or “Highly,” or choices
of “Low,” “Medium,” or “High.”

117
The environmental, economic, and social segments primarily gained input from
the participant fleet managers on assessing risks identified in Tables 10 to 12. Risk
measures consist of probability and severity (Alexander & Marshall, 2006; Aven, 2011;
Bernstein, 1996; Haimes, 2009). Risk questions in this study asked participants to rate
both the probability and severity as “Low,” “Medium,” or “High” for each
environmental, economic, and social risk identified by the researcher or added by the
participants.
Overview
One of the three participants had strong EV experience. That company’s internal
analysis proved EVs as an economically viable replacement for larger diesel trucks,
primarily due to their lower gas mileage. However, EVs are currently limited to trucks
driven less than approximately 100 miles per day due to battery capacity and weight
constraints. The company set goals at 50.0% of Class 6 trucks as EVs and 50.0% of
Classe7 and Class 8 trucks using CNG by the year 2020. The remaining smaller trucks
continue to use diesel fuel. Although the company charges EVs on-site, it is researching
whether to fuel CNG on-site, as well. Although the company finds vehicle-to-grid (V2G)
interesting, they do not plan to manage internally.
Another participant plans to test CNG-fueled trucks in early 2013. That
company’s concern with EVs resulted from the significant number of large trucks in its
fleet driven over 100 miles per day. The third participant considers replacing its fleet
with smaller or hybrid vehicles. All participants consider leasing for each truck
acquisition, but two generally buy due to the current low cost of capital or high mileage
118
penalties on leases. Only one participant disclosed its internal cost of capital, which
ranged from 6.0% to 12.0%.
Although the participants identified economics as the primary decision driver for
alternative fuel use, each included environmental reasons as well, primarily reducing
carbon footprint and global warming. Acknowledging the current debate on global
warming, one participant found EVs an easy solution for change. Branding benefits of
alternative fuel use included customer perception for one participant, while another
participant used branding in truck acquisition decisions in case of an economic tie.
Environment
All participants felt similarly that companies using petroleum or CNG are
“Somewhat” financially accountable for any negative environmental effects and that
taxpayers should share “Somewhat” in future costs. Participants expressed
environmental concerns as:
 “Must do something and do it rationally” (Company A, 2012, p. 4).
 “Climate change is directly related to the use of petroleum & by-products, so the
natural progression into alternative fuels is necessary. Further & faster adoption
will (occur) once the barrier costs are reduced” (Company B, 2012, p. 4).
 “Reliance on foreign sourced fuels (petroleum, natural gas), coupled with the
effects of both must be considered when discussing and funding research into
CNG and electric sources. In the long term, having additional sources and
methods of utilizing those sources will become more important” (Company C,
2012, p. 4).
119
Participants rated negative effects from climate or topography as “Low” or
“Medium” for petroleum and CNG. One participant noted that although extreme cold
negatively affects EVs, speeds in excess of 35 MPH, and steep grades, through
discussions with manufacturers, they anticipate technology improvements over the next
24 months to correct these issues. Table 14 summarizes each participant’s and the
average of participants’ responses to environmental risks, quantifying each risk as 1 for
“Low,” 2 for “Medium,” and 3 for “High.”
Table 14
Probability and Severity Ratings for Environmental Risks (per Company A, B, and C)
Probability Severity
Risks A B C Ave A AveB C
Climate change from greenhouse
2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.2
gases
Other air pollutants 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.0 1.5
Raw material sourcing
Oil 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Coal 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
Lithium dnk 3.0 3.0 3.0 Dnk 3.0 3.0 3.0
Disposal of oil 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Disposal of lithium 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.7
Oil spills and leaks 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0
Rainwater runoff 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Nuclear leaks 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.7
Other:
Comments: “Issues are more a matter of when, than if, for oil and nuclear” (Company
A, 2012)
Note. Dnk = do not know. Scale based on 1.0 = Low, 2.0 = Medium, and 3.0 = High.
As shown in Table 14, on a scale of one being “Low,” participants’ ratings as
“High” probability and severity of risk were the sourcing and disposing of lithium.
Individual participant ratings of “High” for probability of risk were climate change from
greenhouse gases (GHG) and sourcing of oil and for severity of risk were climate change
120
from GHG and oil leaks. Results from averaging participant ratings for “High”
probability of risk were climate change from GHG, sourcing of oil, and sourcing of
lithium, and for “High” severity of risk, climate change from GHG and sourcing of
lithium. Average ratings of “Low” for probability and severity of risk were rainwater
runoff, and “Low” for only severity of risk was disposing oil.
Economic
Two participants indicated willingness to pay over $0.7500 per mile for the
benefits of EV and one indicated willingness to pay over $0.7500 per mile for CNG. One
participant disclosed an internal return rate on investments ranging from 6.0% to 12.0%;
the other two participants could not disclose their expected rate of return. The economic
comments from participants included:
 “Economics drive the EV decision, which will improve over time. Acceptance is
increasing. We are near tipping point with gas prices increasing, military turmoil,
and carbon at lower rate of change” (Company A, 2012, p. 5).
 “They are the driving force of adoption, the ROI & NPV must be in alignment
with the cost of capital, or we will not adopt” (Company B, 2012, p. 5).
 “These sources “fuel” American enterprise—we must find and utilize US-based
alternatives to both increase American jobs and reduce or eliminate the
dependence on foreign sourced fuels” (Company C, 2012, p. 5).
Table 15 summarizes each participant’s and the average of participants’ responses
to economic risks, quantifying the risks as previously explained under the Qualitative
Data heading.
121
Table 15
Probability and Severity Ratings for Economic Risks (per Company A, B, and C)
Risks A B C Ave A B C Ave
Capacity of electric grid to support
growth of EVs 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.3
Highway fuel tax added to electric
prices for EVs 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0
Electricity price increase 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.3
Ability for EVs to handle range
and weight loads 1.0 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.3
Oil price increase 2.5 2.0 2.0 2.2 1.5 3.0 2.0 2.2
Political issues with OPEC 2.5 1.0 3.0 2.2 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
CNG prices increase 2.7 1.0 1.0 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.7
Interest rate increase 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 2.0
Other:
Political pressure to artificially
reduce petro pricing 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Note. OPEC = Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. Scale based on 1.0 = Low, 2.0 =
Medium, and 3.0 = High.
As shown in Table 15, on a scale of 1.0 being “Low,” individual participant
ratings of “High” for probability of risk were electricity capacity for growth of EVs,
electricity price increases, political issues with the Organization for Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC), and interest rate increases. Participant ratings of “High” for severity
of risk were increases in electricity costs for highway fuel tax, EVs’ capability of range
and weight loads, oil price increases, political issues with OPEC, and interest rate
increases. Results from averaging participant ratings produced the “Highest” probability
of risk for electricity price increases and the “Highest” severity of risk for EVs’ capability
of range and weight loads, and political issues with OPEC. However, the participant with
the most EV experience rated the probability and severity of risks for EVs’ capability of
range and weight loads as “Low.”

122
Social
Participants’ overall feelings regarding the importance of the social issues from
petroleum, CNG, and EVs included:
 “Low importance. Politically, (U.S. use of oil) is moronic and embarrassing as a
civilization” (Company A, 2012, p. 6).
 “Reduction of energy usage should be a top priority of all” (Company B, 2012, p.
6).
 “As we become more aware of the possibilities of alternative fuels, politicians and
business leaders will have to respond with actual implementation of meaningful
replacements to traditional fossil fuel solutions currently used” (Company C,
2012, p. 6).
Table 16 summarizes each participant’s and the average of responses to social
risks, quantifying the risks as previously explained under the Qualitative Data heading.
Table 16
Probability and Severity Ratings for Social Risks (per Company A, B, and C)
Risks A B C Ave A B C Ave
Safety of EVs 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Safety of petroleum 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.7
Safety of CNG 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 2.3
Developing countries’ demand
greater share of oil supply 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.7
Other:
Note. Scale based on 1.0 = Low, 2.0 = Medium, and 3.0 = High.
As shown in Table 16, on a scale of 1.0 being “Low,” individual participant
ratings of “High” for probability of risk were safety of EVs and developing countries
123
demanding greater share of oil supply, and for severity were safety of CNG and
developing countries’ demanding greater share of oil supply. On average, the highest
ratings for probability of risk were developing countries demanding greater share of oil
supply and for severity of risk was CNG safety. On average, rating for severity of risk
was “Low” for EV safety.
Quantitative Data
The researcher consolidated quantitative data from participants to avoid
identification and maintain confidentiality of the individual fleet participant companies.
Table 17 summarizes the total number of all three participants’ fleet trucks and illustrates
the potential for replacement by EV trucks, filtered according to Figure 17 in Chapter
Three.
Table 17
Participants’ Trucks Potentially Eligible for Replacement by EV Trucks
% of % of
EV Truck Filter Units Prior Total
Total trucks 21,467 100.0% 100.0%
Class 1 to 7 active 19,916 92.8% 92.8%
Petroleum-fueled 19,816 99.5% 92.3%
Drive < 100 miles / day 19,561 98.7% 91.1%
Centrally garaged 19,561 100.0% 91.1%
Operate < 60 hours/week 17,711 90.5% 82.5%
ISO/RTO state 12,211 68.9% 56.9%
Note. ISO = Independent System Operator and RTO = Regional Transmission Organization.
First, sorting all 21,467 trucks by GVWR class and active status eliminated the
Class 8 or inactive trucks from the data, as shown in Table 17. Class 8 trucks, generally
used for long haul of heavily weighted goods, are not viable for EVs primarily due to the
limited range of EVs (Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012). Second, the researcher filtered
124
out trucks already using an alternative fuel to focus the study on replacing existing fossil-
fueled trucks. The participants used fossil fuels for 19,816 trucks, all but 100 of the Class
1 to Class 7 trucks. Third, the researcher filtered the remaining trucks by annual miles to
eliminate those driven over 100 miles per day due to the limited range for EVs (Amburg
& Pitkanen, 2012). The researcher conservatively excluded trucks from the participant
data that exceeded 26,000 miles annually, or 83 miles daily (26,000 / 52 weeks / six
workdays per week). The participant companies drove 19,561 trucks, nearly 99.0% of
their fossil-fueled Class 1 to Class 7 active trucks, less than 83 miles per day. These
trucks are potential candidates for replacement by EV trucks for operators wishing to
purchase or lease trucks without using for V2G ancillary services.
Trucks used for V2G ancillary services required further filtering. Consolidation
of fleet trucks enables leveraging V2G opportunities (Gartner & Wheelock, 2011).
Participants centrally garaged all their trucks driven less than 83 miles per day when not
in operation. Battery lessors leveraging V2G opportunities require lessees to plug in EV
trucks for over 5,000 hr per year, per conversation with Fleet Energy Company
executives. The researcher conservatively excluded the remaining trucks that operated
over 60 hr per week (24 hr per day multiplied by 365 days per year equals 8,760 hr per
year, minus the sum of 60 hr operating and five hr unplugged per week multiplied by 52
weeks, minus 4 hr per year for maintenance equals 5,376 hr available for charging). The
participating companies operated 17,711 trucks, or over 90.0% of the qualifying units,
less than 60 hr per week.
For EV leasing options at the time of this study, lessors preferred trucks located in
states using an Independent System Operator (ISO) or Regional Transmission

125
Organization (RTO) to regulate electricity flow on the grid per discussion with Fleet
Energy Company executives. ISOs and RTOs contract more readily for V2G services
than do utility companies do. Industry experts expect utilities in other states eventually to
adapt contracting for V2G regulation services (Beck, 2009). The researcher only
included participant trucks in states covered all or mostly by an ISO or RTO per the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013). See Appendix G, Regional
Transmission Organizations Map, for states operating with an ISO or RTO as of
December 2012.
The remaining 12,211 trucks, or nearly 57.0% of the original total trucks, which
met the filtering criteria in Table 17, were potential candidates for EV leasing. The
conservative estimates for annual miles and operating hours per week, and exclusion of
trucks in states only partially covered by and ISO/RTO, probably underestimated this
final number of trucks through the filter. However, additional factors potentially limiting
candidacy for EVs include extremely cold temperatures, road grade, and lack of adequate
electricity infrastructure (DOT, DOE, & EPA, 2002; EV Propulsion, 2011). Although
participants did not include such details in the data, the researcher estimated these factors
to have a limited impact on the totals, as the U.S. population is minimal in areas of
extreme cold or road inclines (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b). In addition, utilities are
building out electricity infrastructure for grid stabilization, population growth, and to
support renewable energy sources (Roush, 2012).
The researcher limited the analysis to the 12,211 trucks located in the ISO/RTO
states to isolate the data to those units with revenue opportunities from grid regulation
using V2G technologies on EVs. Table 18 summarizes the data for participants’ trucks
126
eligible for EV replacement by class. The researcher averaged truck weight for each
class from the range of weights listed by the DOT as summarized in Table 13 since
participants did not report individual truck weight. Participants reported operating time
on average rather than by individual truck or truck class.
Table 18
Summary of Participant Fleet Truck Data
Number Miles per Weight

of Units Gallon a Day a Truck b Cargo a
Class 1 0 0.0 0 6,000 0
Class 2 43 16.6 49 8,001 2,000
Class 3 9,682 20.0 38 12,001 4,000
Class 4 1 8.9 38 15,001 4,425
Class 5 0 0.0 0 17,751 0
Class 6 2,287 6.0 38 22,751 8,045
Class 7 199 6.7 28 29,501 15,079
12,211 17.1 38 15,858 4,931
Hours per day a 10

a
Days per week 6
Weeks per year a 52
a
Weighted average of participant data
b
Mean average of GVW range from DOT ratings
Class 3 trucks comprised 79.3% and Class 6 trucks comprised 18.7% of the total
trucks in Table 18. The participant trucks averaged 17.1 miles per gallon (MPG) overall,
20.0 MPG for Class 3, and 6.0 MPG for Class 6. Miles per day were relatively similar
regardless of truck class. Cargo weight increased with each class. Participants operated
their trucks an average of 3,120 hr per year based on a weighted average of 10 hr per day,
six days per week, and 52 weeks per year.

127
Annual maintenance cost per fossil-fueled vehicle was $2,341 from one
participant, $1,812 from the second participant, and not reported by the third participant.
Participants indicated an average vehicle life of 12 to 15 years, although one participant
reported extending replacement period due to an economic downturn. The average age of
all three participants’ truck portfolios was already 11 years, three to five years older than
an expected average for a portfolio of trucks bought over a 12 to 15 year period.
Analyses
The analyses included measuring the risks, costs, and benefits of the
environmental, economic, and social issues for petroleum, CNG and EVs. The researcher
identified risks from literature review. Participants qualitatively assessed the risk levels
and the researcher quantified as explained in the following paragraphs. Sources for cost
data included literature review, OEMs, suppliers, and participants quantitative input. The
researcher identified benefits from the literature review and participant qualitative input.
Risk analysis consists of measuring the probability and severity of an unknown
event or adverse effect qualitatively or quantitatively (Alexander & Marshall, 2006;
Aven, 2011; Bernstein, 1996; Haimes, 2009). Bernstein (1996) described probability as
the degree of belief, opinion, or “gut view” (p. 49). However, he noted there is no precise
risk measurement method due to uncertainty and subjectivity. According to Haimes
(2009), “Any (risk) model should be as simple as possible and as complex as needed to
answer the expected questions” (p. 1649). Bernstein (1996) cautioned that appropriate
risk management balances quantitative analysis with intuition. Quantifying risks includes
assigning a subjective, knowledge-based value to probability and severity (Aven, 2011).
Creating a risk matrix consists of valuing probabilities and severity for each risk,
128
multiplying these values for each risk, and then comparing the products of all risks
(Alexander & Marshall, 2006).
Participants rated each risk probability and severity as “Low,” “Medium,” or
“High,” and the researcher assigned a value of 1, 2, or 3, respectively. The researcher
created a risk factor for each risk by multiplying the average of the participants’
responses for probability by the average of the participants’ responses for severity. Risk
factors ranged from 1.0 (probability of 1.0 multiplied by severity of 1.0) to 9.0
(probability of 3.0 multiplied by severity of 3.0). The researcher assigned the risk factors
to each applicable fuel type then totaled the risk factors for each fuel to obtain one overall
risk factor for environmental risks, one for economic risks, and one for social risks for
each fuel type in this study. However, the results of this simple quantification process
may not always reflect the risk tolerance for each fleet operator. Fleet operators should
assess and compare the total risks by fuel alternative in accordance with their
organization’s specific situations and tolerances over time.
Environmental costs measure GHG by a tax per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2; EIA,
2011). The researcher calculated a CO2 tax per ton per mile for each fuel type. The
environmental costs used the national average for energy sources of electricity generation
per Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne; 2012). Costs for economic analysis
included a NPV of lifecycle costs for vehicle and equipment acquisition, operations, and
disposition. Scenarios for economic costs varied key data such as miles per day, off-site
fueling, number of vehicles, acquisition and fuel costs, and energy capacity. Due to the
nature of social costs being broadly subjective and uncertain, the researcher weighed the
social costs in total rather than specifically quantifying each identifiable cost.
129
Benefits in the study were more subjective than risks and not specifically
quantifiable. The researcher weighed the benefits qualitatively in total for each fuel type.
Subjective valuations differ by fleet operator and over time.
Environmental
Environmental risks. Table 19 illustrates the identified environmental risk
factors by fuel type. Alexander and Marshall (2006) discussed quantifying qualitative
data for comparison. The researcher quantified the average probability and average
severity rated as “Low,” “Medium,” or “High” by participants as 1, 2, or 3, respectively.
Risk factor is the product of the average probability and the average severity ratings by
the three participants. The researcher then assigned each risk factor to applicable fuel
types.
Table 19
Environmental Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type
Average Average Risk Applicable Fuel Type

Risks Probability Severity Factor Petro CNG EV
Climate change from GHG 2.3 2.2 5.1 5.1 5.1
Other air pollutants 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0
Raw material sourcing:
Oil 2.3 2.0 4.6 4.6
Coal 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7
Lithium 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
Disposal of oil 1.3 1.0 1.3 1.3
Disposal of lithium 2.0 1.7 3.4 3.4
Oil spills and leaks 1.3 2.0 2.6 2.6
Rainwater runoff 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Nuclear leaks 1.3 1.7 2.2 2.2
Total 17.6 9.1 16.3
Note. Scale based on 1.0 = Low to 9.0 = High.

130
As shown in Table 19, on a scale of 1.0 being “Low,” the highest environmental
risk factor was raw material sourcing of lithium for EVs. “Medium” environmental risk
factors included climate change from GHG for petroleum- and CNG -fueled vehicles, and
raw material sourcing of oil for petroleum-fueled vehicles. In total, environmental risk
was lowest for CNG and highest for petroleum. Environmental risk was lowest for EVs
when excluding the effect of sourcing lithium.
Environmental costs. Environmental costs include cleanup and prevention
(Hanley & Spash, 2003). These costs are difficult to estimate since damages from GHG
are not readily detectable, measurable, or reparable. Although several GHGs emissions
occur in the sourcing, transporting, processing, distribution, and consumption of energy
sources, this study uses only CO2 emissions for costing. As discussed in Chapter Two,
Literature Review, estimates for CO2 costs per ton ranged from $21 to $500.
Table 20 compares GHG by fuel type at a CO2 cost of $100 per ton using
participants’ average data for 10 diesel units of Class 3 trucks at 20 MPG and Class 6
trucks at 6 MPG, both driven 38 miles per day, six days per week, over a 12-year life.
EV miles per kilowatt-hour (kWh) came from calculating manufacturers’ specifications
as detailed in Appendices I and J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 and
Class 6 trucks, respectively. The researcher used national averages from Argonne’s
(2012) GREET model to calculate CO2 pounds per mile for gasoline, diesel, and CNG
based on diesel MPG. Carbon Emissions by Power Control Area in Appendix B
produced the national average of 1.3555 pounds of CO2 per kWh used to calculate pounds
per mile for EV trucks. The researcher discounted future GHG costs at 5.0% market rate
for NPV.
131
Table 20
NPV of GHG Cost by Fuel Type for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks
Gasoline Diesel CNG EV

a
Miles per year 11,856
Number of vehicles a 10
a
Life of vehicle in years 12
b
Discount rate 5.0%
CO2 cost per ton c $100.00
Class 3:
Miles per fuel unit a 20.00 1.84
d
CO2 pounds per mile 1.4156 1.2142 1.1337 0.74
NPV lifecycle cost $74,378 $63,796 $59,566 $38,707
Truck NPV cost per year $620 $532 $496 $323
NPV cost per mile $0.0523 $0.0449 $0.0418 $0.0272
Class 6:
Miles per fuel unit a 6.00 1.22
d
CO2 pounds per mile 4.7187 4.0474 3.7791 1.1111
NPV lifecycle cost $247,927 $212,656 $198,559 $58,379
Truck NPV cost per year $2,066 $1,772 $1,655 $486
NPV cost per mile $0.1743 $0.1495 $0.1396 $0.0410
a Participant data average for diesel; manufacturer data for EV miles per fuel unit in LCA.
b Market data per LCA.
c Approximated from Literature Review.
d Per GREET model for gasoline, diesel, and CNG (Argonne, 2012).
National average of 1.3555 pounds per kWh for EV from Appendix B (EPA, 2012f).
The researcher used Class 2 light-duty truck data as the heaviest truck option in
the GREET model at diesel 17.64 MPG and prorated to 20 and 6 MPG for Class 3 and
Class 6, respectively, for the calculations in Table 20. For both Class 3 and Class 6
trucks, diesel CO2 pounds and costs per mile were approximately 14.2% less than
gasoline, and CNG CO2 pounds and costs per mile were approximately 19.9% less than
gasoline. Diesel and CNG percentage difference from gasoline did not differ between
132
Class 3 and Class 6 since their fuel units represent gasoline gallon equivalents. Class 3
EV truck CO2 pounds and costs per mile were approximately 48.0% less than CO2
pounds and costs per mile for gasoline, and Class 6 EV truck CO2 pounds and costs per
mile were approximately 76.5% less than those for gasoline were. The difference
between Class 3 and Class 6 EV truck CO2 pounds per mile reflects the difference in
miles per kWh, which results primarily from the difference in GVW of approximately 6
tons for Class 3 and 9 tons for Class 6 used in calculation miles per kWh.
GHG emissions for EVs range from zero when charged from electricity generated
100.0% from renewable energy to approximately the same as CNG for electricity
generated entirely from coal using carbon capture and storage (Jaramillo, 2007).
However, use of EVs may not create additional GHGs to the extent of charging EVs from
excess electricity generated at night and otherwise wasted. See Appendix B, Carbon
Emissions by Power Control Area, for specific CO2 equivalent grams per mile for local
utility.
Environmental benefits. Environmental benefits of EVs include the opportunity
to improve use of renewable energy (Lund & Kempton, 2008). Charging EV batteries
with electricity generated from wind or solar provides the means for storing this energy.
Increasing the use of renewable energy through storage and night-time charging assists
investor-owned utilities in meeting state regulated renewable portfolio standards (RPS)
(EIA, 2012c). Lithium used in EV batteries is recyclable (EPA, 2012d). For quantifying
benefits, the researcher counted each benefit as one without weighing any one benefit as
greater or lesser than any other benefits due to immeasurable value of each benefit on a
133
holistic basis. As with risks, fleet operators must assess benefits for their organization’s
specific conditions and over time.
Economic
Economic risks. Table 21 illustrates the identified economic risk factors by fuel
type. Participants rated average probability and average severity as “Low,” “Medium,”
or “High,” which the researcher quantified as 1, 2, or 3, respectively to quantify the
participants’ qualitative ratings per Alexander and Marshall (2006). Risk factor is the
product of the average probability and the average severity ratings by the three
participants. The researcher assigned each risk factor to applicable fuel types.
Table 21
Economic Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type

Capacity of electric grid to
support growth of EVs 1.7 1.3 2.2 2.2
Highway fuel tax added to
electric prices for EVs 1.7 2.0 3.4 3.4
Electricity price increase 2.3 1.3 3.0 3.0
Ability for EVs to handle
range and weight loads 1.7 2.3 3.9 3.9
Oil price increase 2.2 2.2 4.8 4.8
Political issues with OPEC 2.2 2.3 5.1 5.1
CNG prices increase 1.6 1.7 2.7 2.7
Interest rate increase 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
Other: Political Pressure to
artificially reduce
petro pricing 3.0 3.0 9.0 9.0
Total 22.9 6.7 16.5
Note. Scale based on 1.0 = Low to 9.0 = High.
As shown in Table 21, on a scale of 1.0 being “Low,” the highest economic risk
factor was political pressure to reduce petroleum pricing artificially. “Medium”

134
economic risk factors included oil price increases and political issues with OPEC for
petroleum-fueled vehicles, ability of range and weight loads for EVs, and interest rate
increases applicable to all fuel types. As with environmental risks, economic risks were
lowest for CNG and highest for petroleum.
Economic costs. Because the majority of participants’ trucks were Class 3 and
Class 6, and because these classes differ significantly in size, cost, and mileage, the
researcher segmented the analysis by these two classes, rather than averaging. The LCA
compared the NPV of the lifecycle costs for petroleum, CNG, and EV trucks separately
for Class 3 and Class 6 trucks. The researcher analyzed each class of truck for the NPV
lifecycle costs on a base case, and then created several scenarios by adjusting primary
variables by 10.0% to determine the effect of change compared to the base case for each
fuel type. In addition, the researcher created best-case and worst-case scenarios for EV
trucks compared to petroleum-fueled trucks by truck class. The best and worst-cases
illustrated a range of combined effects of variable changes on the NPV lifecycle costs.
Lifecycle costs included the initial and replacement assets minus current federal
incentives and residual asset value at end of vehicle life, plus operating expenses and
interest expense, and minus income tax benefits over an average 12-year vehicle life.
The analyses included costs for 10 vehicles in one location to leverage fueling equipment
costs over multiple vehicles. The number of locations affected the amount of tax
incentives maximized by location.
The researcher analyzed diesel and CNG vehicles as purchased and financed by a
fleet operator, although leasing should prove similar financial results on a LCA basis
(Spitzley et al., 2004). Conversely, the analysis included EV leasing as a separate

135
alternative since it involves fuel sourcing and the financial dynamics differ from the EV
buying alternative. The EV lease alternative assumed a fleet operator buys the vehicle
under its normal financing terms and uses the batteries and charging equipment owned by
a third party fuel supplier that specializes in V2G operations. For simplicity, this study
referred to this alternative as an EV lease and the fuel supplier as a lessor, although not
technically a lease. The EV lease depends on the lessor’s ability to use the batteries and
charging equipment for V2G opportunities, primarily grid regulation (Fleet Energy
Company, 2011). A condition of an EV lease includes a minimum number of hours
available for battery plug-in. EV lease payments for batteries and charging equipment in
the analysis consisted of a per-mile charge based on current petroleum costs per mile and
held constant over the contract term, generally the same number of years as the battery
warranty. The EV buy alternative is open to vehicles nationwide. However, at the time
of this study, the EV lease alternative was limited to regions serviced by an ISO or RTO
for practical V2G contract purposes. Therefore, the analyses limited the number of
participant vehicles to those in ISO or RTO regions.
Variables for fleet duty cycle included participant data from Table 18, averaging
38 miles daily, operating six days per week and 52 weeks per year; average cargo weight
of 4,000 pounds for Class 3 and 8,045 pounds for Class 6 trucks; and fuel type as diesel
for both classes. The researcher added 20 miles to the average miles driven per day as a
buffer for any unanticipated miles before returning to a fleet’s fuel station. Other fleet
factors included the portion of fleet trucks operating on road grades exceeding 5.0%, at
speeds exceeding 35 MPH, and requiring heat or cooling for the cab (EV Propulsion,
2011). For the base case, the researcher estimated that fleet operators drive half of the
136
vehicles on road grades exceeding 5.0%, half at speeds exceeding 35 MPH, and all
requiring hot or cold air conditioning. Additionally, the templates include a variable for
energy in kWh used for vocational tools, such as cement mixers or booms, which would
increase battery size. However, none of the participants in this study operated vocational
trucks so the amounts are zero.
Other key assumptions used in asset costs for the base case included:
 Trucks – Truck costs vary based on factors such as truck class, vehicle type,
model, options, upfits, and location. Although conversion to CNG may use a
fleet’s existing petroleum-fueled vehicle, the researcher analyzed new vehicle
purchases for like comparison to the petroleum and EV alternatives. The cost
bases for diesel and CNG Class 3 and Class 6 trucks were the average of
participants’ historic purchase prices brought current and the manufacturer
suggested retail prices of Ford’s 2013 models 350 and 650, plus options, plus
estimated upfit costs, minus an estimated 10.0% discount from list price for
volume purchases. The cost basis for EV Class 6 trucks was a manufacturer
quote minus an estimate for battery cost shown separately in the asset cost
section, plus estimated upfit costs, minus an estimated 10.0% discount. The
researcher prorated the cost basis for the EV Class 3 truck from the EV Class 6
truck as a percentage of the petroleum Class 6 truck cost multiplied by the
petroleum Class 3 truck cost. Per discussion with an industry expert, using only
direct current chargers for EVs may reduce the cost of EV onboard chargers by
eliminating the need for on-board alternate current conversion components. In
addition, the weight savings improves kWh per mile. However, the researcher did
137
not include such adjustments in the analysis. Truck weight used in battery sizing
for EVs was conservatively the average pounds for each class per DOT GVWR as
summarized in Table 13 minus participant cargo weight.
 Conversions – The cost basis for CNG conversion of a Class 3 truck was a
supplier quote and of a Class 6 truck was Clean Cities’ business case for CNG
(Johnson, 2010). Cost ranges in the literature review supported these inputs.
 Batteries – Battery pack sizing for EV trucks is complex and requires a battery
and electrical expert for actual sizing. The researcher used several variables in
estimating battery size; however, specific fleet operating factors will affect battery
size. Factors for battery sizing used in this study included:
o Average miles driven per day from participant data plus 20 buffer miles
per day estimated by the researcher to allow for unanticipated trip miles
and to reduce range anxiety.
o Estimated additional energy required for the portion and time of fleet at
5.0% of battery for use on roads exceeding 5.0% grade, 5.0% for
exceeding 35 MPH, and 15.0% for climate control in the cab (EV
Propulsion, 2011).
o Limitations for the portion of battery not usable due to depth of discharge
(DOD) and potentially for state of charge (SOC). As illustrated in Figure
18, prudent battery management includes extending battery life by limiting
discharging to 80.0% DOD, and preventing damage from excess charging
from regenerative braking at start of trip by limiting fuel station charging
to 95.0% SOC (Beck, 2009).

138
Battery charging capacity 75%

(95% - 20%)
Reserve 20%
kW kWh
(Power) 95% 80%
(Energy)
State of charge Depth of discharge

(maximum)
Figure 18. DOD limitation on usable battery charging capacity requires

battery size larger than required for energy needs per Beck, 2009. SOC
limitation prevents damage to the battery for excess charging.
o Estimated kWh per mile per ton used for Class 3 and Class 6 trucks
calculated from Smith Electric Vehicle’s published data for its Class 6
Newton model as a 120 kWh battery at 80.0% DOD limits, 150 mile
range, and GVWR of 26,000 pounds. Since only 80.0% of battery is
usable, actual miles will equate to 80.0% of published miles, so that
120 kWh / ( 150 miles x 0.8 DOD ) / ( 26000 pounds / 2000
pounds per ton ) = 0.0769 kWh per mile per ton.
o Estimated additional energy in kWh for vocational duties such as cement
mixers or booms, set at zero for this analysis based on participant data but
included in templates for other fleet operators’ use.
o Average weight for trucks per manufacturers’ specifications, for cargo per
participant data, and for batteries at 22 pounds per kWh plus battery
systems at 11 pounds per kWh (Balqon, 2013; Beck, 2009).

139
For estimating EV battery size, the researcher first calculated equivalent miles
by increasing average miles driven per day by conditional factors for excess road grade,
speed, and climate control, and adding to daily buffer miles in Equation 2 as:
E = M ( 1 + .05R + .05S + .15H ) + 20
Where:
E Equivalent daily miles
M Average miles driven per day
R Percent of fleet driven on road grades exceeding 5.0%
S Percent of fleet driven in excess of 35 MPH
H Percent of fleet requiring heat or cooling in cab (2)
Equation 3 represents the calculation of estimated energy in kWh required daily
for battery sizing using the equivalent daily miles as calculated in Equation 2, watt-hours
per mile per ton, any energy for vocational duties, and estimated weight for EV truck
with passengers, cargo, and battery:
( PT + PC )
(E)(W) +V
2000
KU =
PB
1 (E)(W)
2000
Where:
KU kWh required for daily use
E Equivalent daily miles
W kWh per mile per ton
PT Truck weight in pounds
PC Cargo weight in pounds
PB Battery weight in pounds per kWh
V Additional kWh for vocational duties (3)
The numerator in Equation 3 calculates the energy required daily in kWh for
carrying the truck and cargo, and for vocational use. The numerator equates to the
equivalent daily miles in Equation 2 multiplied by an approximate kWh per mile, per ton,
from manufacturers’ specifications, multiplied by the combined truck and cargo weight in
tons, and then increased for energy required for any vocational duties, such as cement
140
mixing or booms, which were none in this study. The denominator adds the energy
required to carry the battery weight, which is dependent on the energy per mile per ton to
carry the battery the equivalent daily miles. Equation 4 represents the calculation for
estimated battery size in kWh expanding the energy required as calculated in Equation 3
for DOD limitations, and conservatively for SOC limitations to ensure adequate battery
capacity for total daily miles at the start of a trip:
KU 1
KB =
DOD SOC
Where:
KB Battery size in kWh
KU kWh required for daily use
DOD Depth of discharge
SOC State of charge (4)
Battery size in kWh equaled the battery size required for duty cycle increased for
the portions of DOD battery not usable and SOC not chargeable. The researcher then
rounded up battery size to the next 10 kWh to estimate manufacturers’ standard sizing.
The researcher estimated battery cost per kWh at $500 for initial battery per supplier
quotes with manufacturers’ volume discounts plus estimates for installation, and at $250
for replacement batteries due to expected decreases in future costs (Balqon, 2013; Clean
Cities, 2012). Although the calculated potential battery life in the base case may exceed
five years based on the battery cycles per the supplier, battery size, and miles driven, the
researcher conservatively estimated battery life at five years. Battery suppliers provide a
battery management system with the batteries; however, the researcher estimated
additional software of $20,000 for unknown data information requirements on new
technology.
141
 Fueling equipment – The study did not include additional fueling equipment for
petroleum fleet trucks. CNG usage required one tank per location costing
$100,000 to $200,000 including installation, per supplier quote. The researcher
split the average between equipment and installation (Johnson, 2010). One EV
charger could charge two trucks based on participants’ charge time availability of
six hours per night and an average charge time of approximately three hours per
truck. The EV lease alternative included the lessor providing one charger per
truck in order to leverage V2G opportunities. Upgrades to source circuitry power
allowed charging two trucks per EV charger based on charge time availability of
six hours per night. EV chargers then matched the source power level and cost
$250 per kWh plus installation costs of equal value, per supplier quotes.
Additional infrastructure costs estimated at $10,000 for Class 3 and $20,000 for
Class 6 trucks covered unexpected trenching, wiring, and engineering per
location. These costs appeared reasonable per the literature review.
Infrastructure costs for the EV lease alternative were twice that of the EV buy to
handle fast charging levels. The analysis assumed the lessor pays for EV chargers
and installation and the fleet operator lessee pays for infrastructure upgrades to
their property per negotiated contract terms for the EV lease alternative.
Electricity cost per mile increased for energy lost per estimated efficiency ratings
on EV chargers from suppliers and on source circuitry from Tomic and Kempton
(2007).
 Incentives – Incentives included federal alternative fuel tax credits per the Internal
Revenue Code 30 for CNG and for EVs at $2,500 plus $417 for each battery kWh
142
over 5 kWh, not to exceed $7,500 for vehicles up to 14,000 pounds (EERE,
2013). The fuel tax credit applied to Class 3; however, it did not apply to Class 6
since the vehicle weight exceeds 14,000 pounds. In addition, a federal fueling
equipment credit per the Internal Revenue Codes 30C and 38 applied to CNG and
EVs for 30.0% of cost, not to exceed $30,000 per location. Under the EV lease
alternative, the lessor received the incentives since the battery and charging
equipment provided the alternative fuel capability. Additional state incentives
may be available depending on fleet vehicle locations. Federal incentives expire
December 31, 2013, unless further extended.
 Residual values – The researcher estimated petroleum truck residual values per
published resale values as a percentage of participant original costs. Estimates for
residual value for Class 3 truck was 10.0% based on resale values per NADA
(2013) and for Class 6 truck was 20.0% based on estimated resale values per
Oodle Marketplace (2013). Although there is not yet a market for 12-year-old
EVs, industry experts expect used EVs to hold values due to lower fuel costs,
especially with expected increases in future oil prices (Callaway, 2011; EDTA,
2012a; EIA, 2012a; Electrification Coalition, 2010; U.S. Senate, 2011). The basis
for CNG and EV trucks residual values is the greater of the percentage for
petroleum residual values and three years of fuel cost savings from that of
petroleum (Lovins, 2011b). The basis for fueling/charging equipment residual
value at the end of 12 years was 20.0% per Johnson (2010). Not included in the
LCA is residual value for ancillary or secondary services from batteries after
vehicle life.
143
Key assumptions used in expense estimates included:
 Fuel – Fuel costs for on-site fueling vary by the extent of third-party services and
mark up provided to fleet operators for each fuel type. Therefore, the researcher
used published retail prices for all fuel costs. Although fuel costs vary by
location, the researcher used the national average for all fuel types. In addition,
electricity rates vary by utility, user type, demand use levels, and time of use. Per
the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013a), gasoline and diesel
national average retail prices for all grades as of January 7, 2013 were $3.37 and
$3.91, respectively. CNG national average retail price for a gasoline gallon
equivalent was $2.13 as of January 11, 2013 per CNG Prices (2013). Electricity
national average retail price was $0.0711 per kWh for industrial users and
$0.1029 per kWh for transportation users as of November 2012 per the latest
Monthly Energy Review report issued by the EIA (2012h). The researcher
conservatively used $0.0900 per kWh as most fleet operators qualify as industrial
users and lower off-peak rates may apply for night charging. The basis for EV
lease payments was the petroleum costs per mile held constant for a five-year
contract and increased 10.0% for each five-year contract renewal. Classifying EV
lease costs as fuel expenses provides comparisons across alternatives in this study.
EIA (2013a) forecasts average annual fuel price increases of 2.6% for gasoline,
3.6% for diesel, 6.2% for CNG, and 2.2% for electricity, as shown in Chapter
Two’s Figures 11, 13, and 15, respectively, over the 12-year period from 2013 to
2024.
144
 Maintenance – The basis for maintenance costs was participant averages for
petroleum and assumed similar for CNG due to the same internal combustion
engine, whereas the literature review provided the basis for EV maintenance
costs. Costs included rental replacement for maintenance downtime at $100 per
hour. The researcher did not include maintenance on fueling stations assumed
similar across fuel types.
 Property tax – The basis for property tax calculation was the 2012 average state
property tax rates at $0.98 mils as listed in Appendix H, Property Tax Rates by
State. The researcher included property tax on the trucks and batteries for the EV
lease as paid by the lessee and property tax on the fueling stations as paid by the
lessor.
 Extraneous operating expenses – The researcher assumed similar costs across fuel
types for fuel station maintenance, auto and property insurance, and labor for
fueling time; therefore, the researcher did not include these costs in the analysis.
No other operating expenses appeared relevant for comparison between fuel types
for this study.
 Interest – Interest rates vary by fleet operator depending on many factors,
including company debt and equity structure, actual financing structure for fleet
trucks, current market rates, company view of trucks as investment or operating
asset, strategic measurements, and other company particulars. The researcher
used 5.0% for interest expense in the analysis per current prime interest rate of
3.25% increased by an estimated premium of 175 basis points based on current
credit markets and business economic conditions.

145
 Income tax – Income tax rates vary by fleet operator depending on company tax
structures. The researcher used 40.0% for an average combined corporate federal
and state income tax rate. The calculation for income tax included depreciation
on the asset costs before incentives minus residual values, expensed
conservatively on a straight-line basis over the expected vehicle life. The
researcher expects that bonus tax depreciation will not continue for the near term
and did not consider it in the analysis.
LCA for Class 3 trucks. Table 22 represents the Class 3 LCA base case for initial
asset costs minus residual values, plus the NPV of operating expenses and interest
expenses, minus the NPV of tax benefits for 10 vehicles in one location. The analysis
includes multiple vehicles to represent spreading the fixed costs of fueling equipment.
See Appendix I, Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 Trucks, for details in
calculating the NPV lifecycle costs in Tables 22, 24, 25, and 26.
146
Table 22
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Base Case
EV
a
Petroleum CNG Buy Lease
Asset costs:
Trucks b $500,000 $500,000 $515,152 $515,152
Conversions 0 140,000 0 0
Batteries 0 0 270,000 0
Fueling equipment 0 150,000 40,000 20,000
Incentives 0 (30,000) (87,000) 0
Total initial asset costs 500,000 760,000 738,152 535,152
Battery replacement, NPV 0 0 279,488 0
Residual values, NPV (27,842) (44,547) (35,567) (29,799)
Total NPV asset costs 472,158 715,453 982,072 505,352
NPV operating costs over lifecycle:
Fuel / lease 197,098 170,692 68,085 175,129
Maintenance 154,952 154,952 65,189 65,189
Property tax 43,430 66,013 61,510 88,176
Total NPV operating costs 395,479 391,657 194,784 328,495
Interest expense, NPV 133,079 202,280 270,853 142,435
Income tax benefit c, NPV (350,919) (448,950) (476,400) (337,674)
NPV of lifecycle costs $649,798 $860,441 $971,310 $638,608
a Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator at minimum
fixed rate per mile.
b Number of units: 10 Truck class: 3
Multiple units leverage cost of fueling equipment.
c Based on expense deductions for operations, interest, and depreciation calculated as NPV of total
assets, less residual value, depreciated on a straight-line basis over vehicle life.
In the Class 3 base case shown in Table 22, total initial asset costs exceeded
petroleum by $260,000, or 52.0%, for CNG; $238,152, or 47.6%, for EV buy; and
$35,152, or 7.0%, for EV lease. Assuming five-year battery life, the NPV of future costs
for battery replacements increased the EV buy alternative another $279,488. The NPV of
147
residual values for the alternative fuels similarly exceeded that for petroleum, with the
benefits realized at the end of vehicle life.
The NPV lifecycle operating costs for petroleum exceeded costs for CNG by
$3,822, or 1.0%; for EV buy alternative by $200,695, or 50.7%; and for EV lease
alternative by $66,985, or 16.9%. In year one, fuel costs per mile at $0.1564 for diesel
exceeded the $0.0942 for CNG by 66.0%. However, with annual forecasted fuel price
increases of 3.6% for diesel and 6.2% for CNG, by year 12, the fuel costs per mile at
$0.2331 for CNG exceeded the $0.2308 for diesel by 1.0%. Interest expenses aligned
with the initial asset costs for each fuel type. Income tax benefits between fuel types
reflected the differences for deductions from asset depreciation, operating expenses, and
for interest expenses.
Overall, the total NPV lifecycle costs exceeded petroleum by $210,643, or 32.4%,
for CNG, and $321,512, or 37.4%, for EV buy, whereas petroleum exceeded the EV lease
alternative by $11,190, or 1.2%. Costs per mile were $0.4567 for petroleum, $0.6048 for
CNG, $0.6827 for EV buy, and $0.4489 for EV lease. EV buy costs per mile exceeded
that for petroleum by $0.2260, less than the $0.7500 per mile that two participants stated
they were willing to spend for EVs. The EV lease cost per mile was $0.0078 less than
petroleum cost per mile.
Figure 19 illustrates the cumulative net cash outlays over the average vehicle life
by fuel type for Class 3 trucks, without consideration to net present value:
148
Class 3 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow - Base Case

$1,200,000
$1,000,000
Petroleum
$800,000 CNG
EV-buy
$600,000
EV-lease
$400,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year
Figure 19. Class 3 truck cumulative cash flow for the base case included initial asset
purchases in year zero; operating and interest expenses, net of tax benefits for each year
one through 12; battery replacement costs in years five and 10; less cash inflow from
residual value in year 12.
Figure 19 reflects the EV buy alternative’s increase in cash outlay for battery replacement
every five years, and a residual value realized in year 12 greater than the other
alternatives due to the higher asset value and fuel cost savings from petroleum. Although
the EV lease initial cash flow exceeded petroleum, by year eight EV lease cumulative
cash flow was less than cumulative cash flow for petroleum. The EV lease alternative
required the least cumulative cash outlay, followed by petroleum, CNG, and then the EV
buy alternative. Again, these cumulative amounts reflect the total cash spent, without
regard to timing or cost of funds.
Table 23 summarizes scenarios for changing significant variable amounts by
10.0% and the effect of these changes on NPV lifecycle costs for Class 3 trucks.
Scenarios excluded from Table 23 due to minimal change on NPV lifecycle costs were
percentages for extra energy required for road grade, speed exceeding 35 MPH, or
climate control in cab; level of circuitry amperage at charging stations home base; and
percentage for residual value of fueling/charging equipment. Table 23 excluded
changing vehicle life since merely adding a year to NPV expenses does not reflect
149
consequential changes in residual value or maintenance costs as vehicles age, or in
replacement vehicle cost.
Table 23 presents the NPV lifecycle costs for the base case and each scenario by
fuel type. Each scenario includes the base case variable amount and a 10.0% revision.
The table includes the percentage by which the NPV lifecycle cost changed from the base
case for each scenario. The researcher only included changes in the most likely direction
for each variable (e.g., decreased cost for batteries, increased cost for fuel prices).
Table 23
Effect on NPV Lifecycle Costs for Various Scenarios of Class 3 Trucks
EV
a
Scenario Variable Base Revised Petroleum CNG Buy Lease
Base case $649,798 $860,441 $971,310 $638,608
1 Miles / day 38 42 $661,624 $870,683 $973,560 $649,116
Change from base 1.8% 1.2% 0.2% 1.6%
2 On-site Y N $679,363 $782,653 $953,522 $664,877
fueling 4.5% -9.0% -1.8% 4.1%
3 Number of 10 11 $714,778 $936,666 $1,064,512 $700,819
vehicles 10.0% 8.9% 9.6% 9.7%
4 kWh per 0.0769 0.0692 $649,798 $860,441 $887,829 $638,608
mile - ton 0.0% 0.0% -8.6% 0.0%
5 Battery $500 $450 $649,798 $860,441 $948,400 $636,002
costs / kWh 0.0% 0.0% -2.4% -0.4%
6 Battery life 5.0 5.5 $649,798 $860,441 $966,256 $638,608
0.0% 0.0% -0.5% 0.0%
7 Charger $250 $225 $649,798 $860,441 $969,621 $638,608
cost / kWh 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.0%
8 Fuel costs 100.0% 110.0% $661,624 $868,604 $973,203 $649,116
1.8% 0.9% 0.2% 1.6%
9 Discount 5.0% 5.5% $647,969 $861,165 $968,155 $638,362
rate -0.3% 0.1% -0.3% 0.0%
a
Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator.
150
Analysis of the variable change effects on NPV lifecycle costs for each scenario
in Table 23 for Class 3 trucks included:
 Scenario 1 – Increasing miles per day increased all fuel costs, with the greatest
effect on petroleum due to higher mileage cost, thus slightly reducing the amount
that CNG and EV buy total costs exceed those for petroleum, and increasing the
amount that petroleum total costs exceed those for the EV lease alternative. The
EV buy alternative increased the least due to the low cost of electricity per mile.
 Scenario 2 – Using off-site fueling stations decreased the initial asset costs for
CNG and EV buy greater than the increase for retail fuel costs, thus reducing the
amount that CNG and EV buy total costs exceed those for petroleum, and
increasing the amount that petroleum total costs exceed those for the EV lease
alternative. CNG decreased the most due to the high cost of CNG fuel stations.
This scenario resulted in the greatest reduction in the amount by which CNG costs
exceeded petroleum costs. CNG costs decreased from $210,643, or 32.4%, over
petroleum costs in the base case to $103,290, or 15.2%, of petroleum costs in
Scenario 2, which equates to $0.0726 per mile.
 Scenario 3 – Increasing the number of vehicles further leveraged the fixed cost of
fueling equipment for CNG and EV buy, and infrastructure costs for EV lease;
thus, increasing total costs by less than the 10.0% increase in number of vehicles.
 Scenario 4 – Decreasing kWh per mile per ton for battery technology
improvements decreased battery size from 50 kWh to 40 kWh and decreased
charging equipment requirements. This scenario resulted in the greatest reduction
in the excess cost of EV buy over petroleum, decreasing initial assets by $54,200,
151
battery replacement by $33,272, operating costs by $12,068, interest expense by
$23,282, and income tax benefits by $40,252, and increasing residual value by
$911, for a net decrease of $83,481. EV buy costs decreased from $321,511, or
49.5%, over petroleum costs in the base case to $238,031, or 36.6%, of petroleum
costs in Scenario 4, which equates to an excess of EV buy over petroleum of
approximately $0.1673 per mile.
 Scenario 5 – Decreasing battery costs per kWh decreased EV buy asset costs and
EV lease property tax expense for reduced property value.
 Scenario 6 – Extending battery life decreased the EV buy asset costs by less than
1.0%.
 Scenario 7 – Decreasing charging equipment costs per kWh decreased the EV buy
asset costs by less than 1.0%.
 Scenario 8 – Increasing all fuel costs affected petroleum the greatest percentage
due to its high fuel cost per mile and greater portion of total costs from fuel. The
EV lease alternative did not change due to fixed fuel rates set at beginning of
contract, although negotiated renewal rates may change depending on future
prices. At diesel 20.0 MPG, total costs of CNG equate to total costs of diesel at
$7.93 per gallon and total costs of EV buy equate to total costs of diesel at $9.82
per gallon. Alternatively, for petroleum Class 3 trucks achieving the national
average of 13.0 MPG per Table 2, total costs of CNG equate to total costs of
diesel at $6.14 per gallon and total costs of EV buy equate to total costs of diesel
at $6.38 per gallon.

152
 Scenario 9 – Increasing the discount rate decreased the present valuing of future
costs, net of a decrease in residual values and tax benefits. The decrease in CNG
residual values and tax benefits slightly exceeded the decrease in expenses,
resulting in a slight net increase, primarily due to the lower portion of CNG
expenses to total costs compared to the other fuel types.
Table 24 illustrates the NPV lifecycle cost by combining different conditions that
result in a best-case scenario for buying Class 3 EV trucks. In this scenario, changes to
data from participants, manufacturers, or markets represented conditions in which the
NPV lifecycle costs for EV truck alternatives decreased compared to the NPV lifecycle
costs for petroleum trucks. Rather than representing data from the participants’ duty
cycle, this scenario demonstrates the effect on NPV lifecycle costs if all the reasonable
conditions that improve the EV buy alternative existed. Changes from the base case to
the best-case scenario for buying EV trucks in Table 24 included:
 Miles driven per day decreased from 38 to 35.
 Buffer miles decreased from 20 to 10.
 No percentage of trucks required energy for road grades exceeding 5.0% or
speeds exceeding 35 MPH.
 No petroleum or CNG filling stations existed on-site.
 Miles per kWh per ton improved by 10.0%.
 Customized battery size equaled energy required, rather than rounding up to
manufacturer’s base standard.
 Battery cost declined from $500 to currently published costs of $350 per kWh.
153
 Battery cycles doubled from 2000 to 4000 for technology improvements, which
improved battery replacement period from five to 10 years.
 Battery replacement labor per vehicle decreased from the estimated average of
$8,500 to the low end of $7,000.
 Charging equipment and installation decreased from an average of $250 to a low
end of equipment at $125 per kWh, still allowing batteries to charge in 2 hr.
 Electrical infrastructure did not require upgrades.
 Circuitry efficiency improved from 93.0% to 95.0%.
 State incentives were $10,000 per truck and $1,000 per charging station.
 Petroleum prices increased from EIA’s current forecast of 3.6% to EIA’s prior
forecast of 5.6% annually while electricity rates did not increase per prior EIA’s
forecast.
 Electricity rates decreased from an average of commercial and industrial rates at
$0.09 per kWh to the average industrial rate of $0.07 per kWh.
154
Table 24
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Best-Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $500,000 $500,000 $515,152 $515,152
Batteries 0 0 114,583 0
Fueling equipment 0 0 9,000 0
Incentives 0 0 (178,700) 0
Fuel / lease 268,655 201,112 43,383 215,071
Maintenance 154,952 154,952 65,189 65,189
Property tax 43,430 55,590 38,221 75,147
In the best-case scenario for buying Class 3 EV trucks, the NPV lifecycle costs
from the base case in Table 22 increased $42,935 for petroleum, decreased $79,943 for
CNG, decreased $459,901 for EV buy, and decreased $353 for EV lease. The NPV
lifecycle costs under this best-case scenario for the EV buy alternative were $181,324, or
26.2%, less than the costs for petroleum. Although CNG total NPV lifecycle costs
155
decreased primarily due to decreased cost for fueling stations, CNG costs still exceeded
petroleum costs. Costs per mile were $0.4956 for petroleum, $0.5584 for CNG, $0.3659
for EV buy, and $0.4566 for EV lease. Costs per mile for EV buy were $0.1297 less than
petroleum and for EV lease were $0.0390 less than petroleum.
The best-case scenario represented all positive changes to the EV buy alternative
and negative changes to petroleum. Various levels of changes exist between the best-
case and worst-case scenarios. Table 25 represents a worst-case scenario for buying
Class 3 EV trucks. In this scenario, changes to data from participants, manufacturers, or
markets represented conditions in which the NPV lifecycle cost for the EV buy
alternative increased compared to that for petroleum trucks. Rather than representing
data from the participants’ duty cycle, this LCA scenario demonstrated the effect on NPV
lifecycle costs if all the reasonable conditions that impaired the EV buy alternative
existed. Changes from the base case in Table 22 to the worst-case scenario for buying
EV trucks in Table 25 included:
 Miles driven per day increased from 38 to 46.
 Buffer miles increased from 20 to 30.
 Days operating per week decreased from six to five.
 The percentage of trucks requiring energy for road grades exceeding 5.0% and
speeds exceeding 35 MPH increased from 50.0% to 100.0%.
 Number of locations increased from one to 10, so that the number of vehicles per
location decreased from 10 to one, eliminating the economies of scale for CNG
and EV buy fueling stations.
 Replacement period for batteries decreased from five to three years.

156
 Battery replacement labor per vehicle increased from the expected average of
$8,500 to the high end of $10,000.
 Electrical infrastructure increased from $20,000 to $30,000 per location.
 Circuitry efficiency decreased from 93.0% to 90.0%.
 Federal incentives expired.
 Price increases for electricity increased from 2.2% to 3.0%.
 Current electricity rates increased from an average of commercial and industrial
rates at $0.09 per kWh to $0.11 per kWh.
 Maintenance doubled from $951 to $1,902 and maintenance downtime hours
from 5.2 to 10.4 hours per truck per year.
 Residual values decreased for trucks from 20.0% to 10.0%, or three to two years
for fuel cost savings, and for charging equipment from 20.0% to 10.0%; and
 Discount rate increased from 5.0% to 5.5%.
Although some states are considering adding a road tax to EVs, per Assumptions,
Limitations, and Delimitations in Chapter Three, the researcher did not attempt to
estimate a worst-case for unprecedented amounts that would vary by locality (Motavalli,
2011).
157
Table 25
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Worst-Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $500,000 $500,000 $515,152 $515,152
Batteries 0 0 320,000 0
Fueling equipment 0 1,500,000 142,000 200,000
Incentives 0 (300,000) 0 0
Total initial asset costs 500,000 1,840,000 977,152 715,152
Total NPV asset costs 473,701 1,734,804 1,462,608 677,536
Fuel / lease 153,494 139,736 93,467 148,007
Maintenance 150,673 150,673 126,778 126,778
Property tax 42,231 155,409 72,396 85,741
NPV of lifecycle costs $632,184 $1,823,084 $1,477,712 $823,259
In this worst-case scenario for buying Class 3 EV trucks, the NPV lifecycle costs
from the base case in Table 22 decreased $17,614 for petroleum, increased $962,643 for
CNG, increased $506,402 for EV buy, and increased $184,651 for EV lease. CNG costs
primarily increased due to the increased number of fueling stations for each location. EV
buy primarily increased due to initial and replacement battery costs. EV lease primarily
158
increased due to the increased locations requiring electricity infrastructure upgrades. The
NPV lifecycle cost per vehicle of $147,771 for the EV buy alternative more than doubled
that for petroleum at $63,218. Costs per mile were $0.4405 for petroleum, $1.2703 for
CNG, $1.0296 for EV buy, and $0.5736 for EV lease. EV buy and EV lease costs per
mile exceeded that for petroleum by $0.5891 and $0.1331, respectively; still less than the
$0.7500 per mile participants stated they were willing to spend for EVs.
Since the base case is a conservative representation of EV trucks, the researcher
included a realistic case using the participants’ data averages. The realistic case
considers recent technology improvements to Li-ion batteries and may be a more
practical application for fleet operators. Changes from the base case in Table 22 to a
realistic case in Table 26 comprised:
 Buffer miles decreased from 20 to 10.
 Exact battery size required rather than rounding up to next 10 kWh.
 Battery cost decreased from $500 per kWh to $400 per kWh.
 Battery life increased from 2000 to 3000 cycles.
 Actual expected battery life rather than five years.
 Battery replacement labor at $7,000.
 Annual fuel price increased 5.0% for petroleum, 2.5% for CNG, and 2.0% for
electricity.
 Current electricity rate decreased from $0.0900 to $0.0800 per kWh for industrial
time of use.
159
Table 26
LCAs for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 3 Realistic Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $500,000 $500,000 $515,152 $515,152
Batteries 0 0 165,316 0
Incentives 0 (30,000) (85,200) 0
Fuel / lease 211,972 141,323 59,092 175,129
Maintenance 154,952 154,952 65,189 65,189
Property tax 43,430 66,013 52,052 79,490
In the realistic case using participant data for Class 3 trucks, the NPV lifecycle
costs from the base case in Table 22 increased $8,925 for petroleum, decreased $17,621
for CNG, decreased $263,242 for EV buy, and decreased $5,212 for EV lease. EV buy
decreased primarily due to extending battery from five years to an expected eight-year
life and decreasing battery cost per kWh. Costs per mile were $0.4630 for petroleum,
160
$0.5924 for CNG, $0.4977 for EV buy, and $0.4452 for EV lease. EV buy costs per mile
exceeded petroleum costs by $0.0347, less than the $0.7500 per mile participants stated
they were willing to spend for EVs. EV lease NPV lifecycle costs were less than
petroleum costs.
Figure 20 illustrates the realistic cumulative net cash outlays over the average
vehicle life by fuel type for Class 3 trucks, without consideration to net present value:
Class 3 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow - Realistic Case

$1,000,000
$900,000
$800,000
Petroleum
$700,000 CNG
$600,000 EV-buy
$500,000 EV-lease
$400,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year
Figure 20. Class 3 truck cumulative cash flow for the realistic case included initial asset
one through 12; battery replacement costs in year nine; less cash inflow from residual
value in year 12.
in year nine. Although the EV lease initial cash flow exceeded petroleum, by year seven
EV lease cumulative cash flow was less than petroleum cumulative cash flow. The EV
lease alternative required the least cumulative cash outlay, followed by petroleum, EV
buy alternative, and then CNG. Again, these cumulative amounts reflect the total cash
spent, without regard to timing or cost of funds.
LCA for Class 6 trucks. Table 27 represents the Class 6 LCA base case for initial
asset costs minus residual values, plus the NPV of operating expenses and interest
expenses, minus the NPV of tax benefits for 10 vehicles in one location to economize the
161
fixed costs of fueling equipment. See Appendix J, Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions
for Class 6 Truck, for details in calculating the NPV lifecycle costs in Tables 27, 29, 30,
and 31.
Table 27
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Base Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $825,000 $825,000 $850,000 $850,000
Batteries 0 0 370,000 0
Incentives 0 (30,000) (95,400) 0
Total initial asset costs 825,000 1,247,950 1,192,600 890,000
Total NPV asset costs 733,122 1,139,367 1,400,628 790,883
Fuel / lease 656,992 568,974 102,382 583,765
Maintenance 309,948 309,948 130,378 130,378
Property tax 71,659 108,397 100,115 125,947
Total NPV operating costs 1,038,600 987,318 332,875 840,090
NPV of lifecycle costs $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,432,262 $1,203,406
c Based on expense deductions for operations, interest, and depreciation calculated as NPV of
total assets, less residual value, depreciated on a straight-line basis over vehicle life.
In the Class 6 base case shown in Table 27, initial asset costs exceeded petroleum
costs by $422,950, or 51.3%, for CNG; $367,600, or 44.6%, for EV buy; and $65,000, or
162
7.9%, for EV lease. Assuming five-year battery life, the NPV of future costs for battery
replacements increased the EV buy alternative another $346,033. The NPV of residual
values for the alternative fuels similarly exceeded that for petroleum, with the benefit
realized at the end of vehicle life.
The NPV lifecycle operating costs for petroleum exceeded costs for CNG by
$51,281, or 4.9%; for EV buy alternative by $705,725, or 67.9%; and for the EV lease
alternative by $198,510, or 19.1%. As with Class 3 trucks, CNG fuel was 66.0% less
than diesel in year one and 1.0% greater than diesel by year 12 due to the greater
forecasted annual price increases for CNG over diesel. Interest expenses aligned with the
asset costs for each fuel type. Income tax benefits between fuel types reflected the
differences for deductions from asset depreciation, operating expenses, and interest
expenses.
Overall, the NPV lifecycle costs exceeded petroleum by $322,997, or 25.4%, for
CNG and by $160,827, or 12.6%, for the EV buy alternative, while petroleum exceeded
the EV lease alternative by $68,030 or 5.4%. Costs per mile were $0.8937 for petroleum,
$1.1207 for CNG, $1.0067 for EV buy, and $0.8458 for EV lease. EV buy costs per mile
exceeded that for petroleum by $0.1130, less than the $0.7500 per mile that two
participants stated they were willing to spend for EVs. EV lease costs per mile were
$0.0479 less than that for petroleum.
Figure 21 illustrates the base case cumulative net cash outlays over the average
163
Class 6 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow - Base Case

$2,000,000
$1,800,000
$1,600,000
Petroleum
$1,400,000
CNG
$1,200,000 EV-buy
$1,000,000 EV-lease
$800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year
Figure 21. Class 6 truck cumulative cash flow for base case included initial asset
purchases in year zero; operating and interest expenses, net of tax benefits, for each year
one through 12; battery replacement costs in years five and 10; less cash inflow from
residual value in year 12.
Figure 21 reflects the increase in cash outlay for battery replacement every five years for
the EV buy alternative and a residual value realized in year 12 greater than the other
alternatives. Although the EV lease initial cash flow exceeded petroleum, by year six EV
lease cumulative cash flow was less than petroleum cumulative cash flow. The EV lease
alternative required the least cumulative cash outlay, followed by petroleum, EV buy, and
then CNG. Again, these cumulative amounts reflect the total cash spent, without regard
to timing or cost of funds.
Table 28 summarizes scenarios for changing significant variable amounts by
10.0% and the effect of these changes on NPV lifecycle costs for Class 6 trucks. As
explained in the introduction to Table 23 for Class 3 trucks, scenarios excluded due to
minimal change on NPV were for extra energy required for road grade, speed exceeding
35 MPH, or climate control in cab, level of circuit amps, percentage for residual value of
fueling/charging equipment, vehicle life, and inflation rates for fuel costs.
164
Table 28 presents the NPV for the base case and each scenario by fuel type. Each
scenario identified the variable per the base case and revised by 10.0%. The effect of
variable changes show as a percentage of change from the base case NPV. Scenarios for
Class 6 trucks included improvement in petroleum mileage for Corporate Average Fuel
Economy (CAFE) requirements, excluded for Class 3 trucks since participants’ average
of 20 MPG already exceeded the national average of 8 to 13 MPG per Table 2. Again,
the researcher only included changes in the most likely direction for each variable.
Table 28
Effect on NPV Lifecycle Costs for Various Scenarios of Class 6 Trucks
EV
Scenario Variable Base Revised Petroleum CNG Buy Lease a
Base case $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,432,262 $1,203,406
1 Miles / day 38 42 $1,312,930 $1,630,368 $1,504,198 $1,240,275
Change from base 3.3% 2.3% 5.0% 3.1%
2 On-site Y N $1,369,984 $1,564,260 $1,386,361 $1,290,970
fueling 7.8% -1.9% -3.2% 7.3%
3 Number of 10 11 $1,398,579 $1,744,057 $1,570,035 $1,320,603
vehicles 10.0% 9.4% 9.6% 9.7%
4 kWh per mile 0.0769 0.0692 $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,343,969 $1,203,406
- ton 0.0% 0.0% -6.2% 0.0%
5 Battery costs $500 $450 $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,400,189 $1,200,279
/ kWh 0.0% 0.0% -2.2% -0.3%
6 Battery life 5.0 5.5 $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,426,006 $1,203,406
0.0% 0.0% -0.4% 0.0%
7 Charger cost / $250 $225 $1,271,435 $1,594,433 $1,429,559 $1,203,406
kWh 0.0% 0.0% -0.2% 0.0%
8 Fuel costs 100.0% 110.0% $1,310,855 $1,621,642 $1,429,215 $1,238,432
3.1% 1.7% -0.2% 2.9%
9 Discount rate 5.0% 5.5% $1,263,078 $1,590,382 $1,432,042 $1,199,511
-0.7% -0.3% 0.0% -0.3%
10 MPG diesel 6.0 6.6 $1,235,599 $1,563,398 $1,442,023 $1,171,564
-2.8% -1.9% 0.7% -2.6%
a
Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator.
165
Analysis of the variable change effects on NPV lifecycle costs for each scenario
in Table 28 for Class 6 trucks included:
 Scenario 1 – Increasing miles per day increased all fuel costs, with the greatest
effect on the EV buy alternative, which, unlike for Class 3 trucks, triggered an
increase in battery kWh rounding to the next highest 10 kWh.
 Scenario 2 – Using off-site fueling stations decreased the initial asset costs for
CNG and EV buy greater than the increase for retail fuel costs, thus reducing the
amount that CNG and EV buy total costs exceed those for petroleum, and
increasing the amount that petroleum total costs exceed those for the EV lease
alternative. CNG decreased the most due to the high cost of CNG fuel stations.
This scenario resulted in the greatest reduction in the amounts by which CNG and
EV buy costs exceeded petroleum costs. CNG costs decreased from $322,997, or
25.4%, over petroleum costs in the base case to $194,276, or 14.2%, over
petroleum costs in Scenario 2, which equates to $0.1366 per mile. The amount by
which EV buy costs exceeded petroleum costs decreased from $160,826, or
12.6%, in the base case to $16,377, or 1.2%, in Scenario 2, which equates to
$0.0115 per mile.
 Scenario 3 – Increasing the number of vehicles further leveraged the fixed costs
of fueling equipment for CNG and EV buy, and infrastructure costs for EV lease
alternative, thus increasing total costs by less than the 10.0% increase in number
of vehicles.
 Scenario 4 – Decreasing the kWh per mile per ton for battery technology
improvements decreased battery size from 70 kWh to 60kWh when rounding up

166
to the nearest 10 kWh and decreased charging equipment requirements. Costs for
EV buy decreased for initial assets by $56,720, battery replacement by $33,272,
operating costs by $15,994, interest expenses by $23,953, and income tax benefit
by $42,951, and increased residual value by $1,305, for a net decrease of $88,293.
The amount by which EV buy costs exceeded petroleum decreased from
$160,826, or 12.6%, in the base case to $72,534, or 5.7%, in Scenario 4, which
equates to $0.0510 per mile.
 Scenario 5 – Decreasing battery costs per kWh decreased EV buy asset costs and
EV lease property tax expense for reduced property value.
 Scenario 6 – Extending battery life decreased the EV buy asset costs by less than
1.0%.
 Scenario 7 – Decreasing charging equipment costs per kWh decreased the EV buy
asset costs by less than 1.0%.
 Scenario 8 – Increasing all fuel costs affected petroleum the greatest percentage
due to its high fuel cost per mile and greater portion of total costs from fuel, as
with Class 3 trucks. Again, the EV lease alternative does not change due to
contract fixed pricing. EV buy costs decreased due to increased residual value
based on three years of fuel cost savings of EVs over petroleum. At diesel 6.0
MPG, total costs of CNG equate to total costs of diesel at $5.56 per gallon and
total costs of EV buy equate to total costs of diesel at $4.14 per gallon.
 Scenario 9 – Increasing the discount rate decreased the present valuing of future
costs, net of a decrease in residual values and tax benefits by less than 1.0% for all
fuel types.
167
 Scenario 10 – Increasing mileage rate for petroleum and CNG from CAFE
regulations on medium and heavy-duty trucks decreased petroleum and CNG
costs, and increase EV buy due to decreased residual value based on fuel costs
savings over petroleum.
Table 29 illustrates the LCA by combining different conditions that result in a
best-case scenario for buying Class 6 EV trucks. As with Class 3 trucks in Table 24, this
scenario included changes to data from participants, manufacturers, or markets that
represented conditions in which the NPV lifecycle cost decreased for EV truck
alternatives and increased for petroleum trucks. Rather than representing data from the
participants’ duty cycle, this scenario demonstrated the effect on NPV lifecycle costs if
all the reasonable conditions that improved the EV buy alternative existed. Changes from
the Class 6 base case in Table 27 to the best-case scenario for buying EV trucks in Table
29 included the same changes made to Class 3 trucks in Table 24, except that miles
driven per day increased from 38 to 48.

168
Table 29
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Best-Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $825,000 $825,000 $850,000 $850,000
Batteries 0 0 173,352 0
Fueling equipment 0 0 14,605 0
Incentives 0 0 (180,381) 0
Total initial asset costs 825,000 1,127,950 857,576 850,000
Total NPV asset costs 733,122 1,029,403 754,783 755,338
Fuel / lease 839,548 525,278 55,121 672,097
Maintenance 309,948 309,948 130,378 130,378
Property tax 71,659 97,974 72,752 110,312
NPV of lifecycle costs $1,380,969 $1,465,322 $840,453 $1,215,593
a Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator at
minimum fixed rate per mile.
c Based on expense deductions for operations, interest, and depreciation calculated as NPV
of total assets, less residual value, depreciated on a straight-line basis over vehicle life.
In the best-case scenario for buying Class 6 EV trucks, the NPV lifecycle costs
from the base case in Table 27 increased $109,534 for petroleum, decreased $129,111 for
CNG, decreased $591,809 for EV buy, and decreased $12,187 for EV lease. The NPV
lifecycle costs under this best-case scenario for the EV buy alternative were $540,516, or
39.1%, less than the costs for petroleum. Although CNG total NPV lifecycle costs
169
decreased primarily due to decreased cost for fueling stations, CNG costs still exceeded
petroleum costs. Costs per mile were $1.0539 for petroleum, $1.1182 for CNG, $0.6414
for EV buy, and $0.9277 for EV lease. Costs per mile for EV buy were $0.4125 less than
petroleum and for EV lease were $0.1262 less than petroleum.
The best-case scenario represented all positive changes to the EV buy alternative
and negative changes to petroleum. Various levels of changes may exist between the
best-case and worst-case scenarios. Table 30 represents a worst-case scenario for buying
EV trucks. As with Class 3 trucks in Table 25, this scenario included changes to data
from participants, manufacturers, or markets that represented conditions in which the
NPV lifecycle cost for the EV buy alternative increased compared to that for petroleum
trucks. Rather than representing data from the participants’ duty cycle, this scenario
demonstrated the effect on NPV lifecycle costs if all the reasonable conditions that
impaired the EV buy alternative existed. Changes from the base case in Table 27 to the
worst-case scenario for buying EV trucks in Table 30 included the same changes made to
Class 3 trucks in Table 25, except that miles per day increased from 38 to 58.
170
Table 30
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Worst-Case
EV
a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $825,000 $825,000 $850,000 $850,000
Batteries 0 0 570,000 0
Fueling equipment 0 1,500,000 376,800 600,000
Incentives 0 (300,000) 0 0
Total initial asset costs 825,000 2,327,950 1,796,800 1,450,000
Total NPV asset costs 781,607 2,205,659 2,512,304 1,373,733
Fuel / lease 645,118 587,298 181,095 622,059
Maintenance 301,390 301,390 253,557 253,557
Property tax 69,681 196,622 124,733 122,469
Total NPV operating costs 1,016,188 1,085,309 559,384 998,085
Income tax benefit c, NPV (718,851) (1,315,616) (1,219,837) (948,257)
In this worst-case scenario for buying Class 3 EV trucks, the NPV lifecycle costs
from the base case in Table 27 increased $27,090 for petroleum, increased $1,000,524 for
CNG, increased $1,105,436 for EV buy, and increased $606,084 for EV lease. CNG
costs primarily increased due to the increased number of fueling stations for each
location. EV buy primarily increased due to initial and replacement battery costs. EV
171
lease primarily increased due to the number of increased locations requiring electricity
infrastructure upgrades. The NPV lifecycle cost per vehicle of $253,770 for the EV buy
alternative more than doubled that for petroleum at $129,853. Costs per mile were
$0.7176 for petroleum, $1.4340 for CNG, $1.4024 for EV buy, and $0.9999 for EV lease.
EV buy and EV lease costs per mile exceeded that for petroleum by $0.6848 and
$0.2823, respectively—still less than the $0.7500 per mile participants stated they were
willing to spend for EVs.
As with Class 3 trucks in Table 26, the researcher included a realistic case, using
the participants’ data averages. Changes for Class 6 trucks from the base case in Table
27 to a realistic case in Table 31 comprised the same changes made in Table 26 for a
realistic case of Class 3 trucks. However, battery replacement labor for Class 6 trucks
reflected the average cost of $8,500 per unit rather than the low end as battery packs are
larger for Class 6 trucks than for Class 3 trucks.
Table 31
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Realistic Case
EV
Petroleum CNG Buy Lease a
Asset costs:
Trucks b $825,000 $825,000 $850,000 $850,000
Batteries 0 0 216,428 0
Incentives 0 (30,000) (90,821) 0
Total initial asset costs 825,000 1,247,950 1,028,345 890,000
Total NPV asset costs 733,122 1,139,367 996,699 790,883
(continued)
172
LCA for Diesel, CNG, and EV Fleet Trucks – Class 6 Realistic Case (continued)
EV
a
Fuel / lease 706,572 471,077 79,877 583,765
Maintenance 309,948 309,948 130,378 130,378
Property tax 71,659 108,397 85,848 115,524
c
Income tax benefit , NPV (739,699) (825,246) (536,647) (660,279)
a Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator at
minimum fixed rate per mile.
In the realistic case using participant data for Class 6 trucks, the NPV lifecycle
costs from the base case in Table 27 increased $29,748 for petroleum, decreased $58,738
for CNG, decreased $366,758 for EV buy primarily for reduced initial and replacement
battery costs, and decreased $6,254 for EV lease. Increasing the battery cycle life
increased battery life from five to eight years. Costs per mile were $0.9146 for
petroleum, $1.0794 for CNG, $0.7489 for EV buy, and $0.8415 for EV lease. EV buy
and EV lease NPV lifecycle costs per mile costs were less than petroleum costs.
Figure 22 illustrates the realistic cumulative net cash outlays over the average
173
Class 6 Truck Cumulative Cash Flow - Realistic Case

$1,800,000
$1,600,000
$1,400,000 Petroleum
CNG
$1,200,000
EV-buy
$1,000,000 EV-lease
$800,000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year
Figure 22. Class 6 truck cumulative cash flow for the realistic case included initial asset
one through 12; battery replacement costs in year nine; less cash inflow from residual
value in year 12.
in year nine. Although the EV buy and EV lease initial cash flows exceeded petroleum,
by year five both were less than petroleum. The EV buy alternative required the least
cumulative cash outlay, followed by EV lease, petroleum, and then CNG. Again, these
cumulative amounts reflect the total cash spent, without regard to timing or cost of funds.
Economic benefits. Economic benefits of petroleum-fueled vehicles included the
current relative abundance of oil, ability to retrieve large quantities and transport in its
natural form, and the established distribution infrastructure (Lovins & Datta, 2006).
Economic benefits for CNG included ability to convert petroleum vehicles (Hurst &
Wheelock, 2011). Economic benefits for EVs included the majority of transmission
infrastructure currently in place and opportunities for grid stabilization, back-up energy
storage, and new revenue to utilities from excess supply or underutilized capacity
((McMorrin et al., 2012; Van Amburg & Pitkanen, 2012).

174
Figure 23 shows a theoretical fixed and variable supply from typical energy
sources by hour. Because of the high cost to ramp up coal plants and minimum nighttime
load constraints, coal plants generally run constant levels even as demand decreases
(Shelby & Mui, 2007). Thus, excess energy is wasted. EVs charged at night may use
excess energy supply or energy from plants more efficiently run at capacity.
Figure 23. Typical dispatch schematic shows amounts of energy from hydro, nuclear, and
coal supply as generally fixed, while natural gas primarily supplies variable energy
amounts to meet peak demand. Trucks charged at night use excess energy from fixed
supply. Adapted from Shelby and Mui, 2007.
Social
Social risks. Table 32 illustrates the identified social risk factors by fuel type.
Participants rated average probability and average severity as “Low,” “Medium,” or
“High,” which the researcher quantified as 1, 2, or 3, respectively, to quantify the

175
participants’ qualitative ratings per Alexander and Marshall (2006). Risk factor was the
product of the average probability and the average severity ratings by the three
participants. The researcher assigned each risk factor to applicable fuel types.
Table 32
Social Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type

Safety of EVs 1.7 1.0 1.7 1.7
Safety of petroleum 1.7 1.7 2.9 2.9
Safety of CNG 2.0 2.3 4.6 4.6
Developing countries’
demand greater share of oil
supply 2.3 1.7 3.9 3.9
Total 6.8 4.6 1.7
Note. Based on scale of 1.0 = Low to 9.0 = High.
As shown in Table 32, on a scale of 1.0 being “Low,” the highest social risk was
safety of CNG vehicles. EVs rated the least risky for safety. Overall, social risks were
lowest for EVs and highest for petroleum.
Social costs. Per the literature review, social costs for petroleum-fueled vehicles
included noise, smell, complexity to drive, and time required to warm up (EPA & DOT,
2011; McMorrin et al., 2012). In addition, the cost of foreign oil dependence reduces
domestic jobs through loss of gross domestic product and wealth transfer (Davis et al.,
2011). Social costs for EVs included time required for driver training (McMorrin et al.,
2012).
Social benefits. Per the literature review, social benefits for petroleum-fueled
vehicles included significant mileage range; power for acceleration, grade, and maximum
speed; and a large selection of existing truck makes and models (Lovins & Datta, 2006).
176
However, standard truck chassis also provide the basis for conversions to CNG or EV
trucks (Castelaz & Nagrani, 2012). Social benefits of EVs included ease of mind
regarding relatively stable electric rates and reliable availability in the US, company-
branding opportunities, and smooth acceleration (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Summary Findings
This study used qualitative and quantitative data to analyze the environmental,
economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits of fleet trucks fueled by petroleum, CNG,
and batteries charged by electricity. Participants in the study qualitatively rated the
probability and severity of each risk identified by the researcher or added by the
participant. The researcher multiplied the average probability by the average severity for
each risk to create one risk factor per risk, which the researcher then assigned by fuel
type. The greatest risks identified by participants were economic risks for petroleum,
primarily due to volatile and rising oil prices; social risks for CNG, primarily due to
safety concerns; and environmental risks for EVs, primarily due to sourcing lithium.
Factors with a known negative effect were included as costs. However, some
were not reasonably estimable, primarily due to nonquantitative social effects. Some of
these factors arguably weigh heavier than other factors, such as smog in populated versus
unpopulated areas. However, as the weighing of these factors is subjective, the
researcher simply rated each factor as one.
The researcher qualitatively identified the environmental, economic, and social
benefits by fuel type from the literature review. Similar to qualitative social costs,
benefits were not objectively estimable. The researcher rated each beneficial factor as
one.
177
Quantitative analysis focused on the Class 3 and Class 6 trucks predominately
used by the study’s participants. Environmental costs consisted of estimates for GHG
calculated in Table 20. The basis for GHG costs per mile for EVs was a national average
of energy sources for generating electricity. However, EVs charged from renewable
energy sources virtually emit no GHGs.
Quantitative economic costs consisted of the LCA for Class 3 and Class 6 truck
assets, operating expenses, interest expense, and income tax benefits. Costs used in the
LCA consisted of data from participants, manufacturers, suppliers, literature review, and
market sources. The researcher analyzed NPV lifecycle costs on a conservative, best,
worst, and realistic basis. The conservative base case included duty cycle data from
participants and conservative estimates from manufacturers, suppliers, and markets.
Best- and worst-cases manipulated this data to test duty cycle conditions that were more
or less favorable, respectively, to buying EV trucks. Finally, the realistic case used
participant data and current or near term negotiable market data to determine most likely
economic results when currently ordering multiple EVs and supplier units.
Tables 33 and 34 summarize the Class 3 and Class 6 trucks, respectively, LCA
per truck, per year, and per mile for base, best-, worst-, and realistic cases. GHG costs
per mile are included for a total cost per mile. Each case includes the cost per mile
differences between the alternative fuels and petroleum.

178
Table 33
Summary of LCA Cases for Class 3 Truck
EV
Base Case (conservative):
Cost per truck $64,980 $86,044 $97,131 $63,861
Truck cost per year $5,415 $7,170 $8,094 $5,322
Cost per mile $0.4567 $0.6048 $0.6827 $0.4489
GHG cost per mile $0.0449 $0.0418 $0.0272 $0.0272
Total cost per mile $0.5016 $0.6466 $0.7099 $0.4761
Difference from petroleum $0.1450 $0.2083 ($0.0255)
Best-Case:
Cost per truck $69,273 $78,050 $51,141 $63,826
Cost per mile $0.4956 $0.5584 $0.3659 $0.4566
GHG cost per mile $0.0449 $0.0418 $0.0272 $0.0272
Difference from petroleum $0.0597 ($0.1474) ($0.0567)
Worst-Case:
Cost per truck $63,218 $182,308 $147,771 $82,326
Cost per mile $0.4405 $1.2703 $1.0296 $0.5736
GHG cost per mile $0.0449 $0.0418 $0.0272 $0.0272
Difference from petroleum $0.8267 $0.5714 $0.1154
Realistic Case:
Cost per truck $65,872 $84,282 $70,807 $63,340
Cost per mile $0.4630 $0.5924 $0.4977 $0.4452
GHG cost per mile $0.0449 $0.0418 $0.0272 $0.0272
a Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator.
179
Table 34
Summary of LCA Cases for Class 6 Truck
EV
Base Case (conservative):
Cost per truck $127,144 $159,443 $143,226 $120,341
Cost per mile $0.8937 $1.1207 $1.0067 $0.8458
GHG cost per mile $0.1495 $0.1396 $0.0410 $0.0410
Best-Case:
Cost per truck $138,097 $146,532 $84,045 $121,559
Cost per mile $1.0539 $1.1182 $0.6414 $0.9277
GHG cost per mile $0.1495 $0.1396 $0.0410 $0.0410
Worst-Case:
Cost per truck $129,852 $259,496 $253,770 $180,949
Cost per mile $0.7176 $1.4340 $1.4024 $0.9999
GHG cost per mile $0.1495 $0.1396 $0.0410 $0.0410
Difference from petroleum $0.7065 $0.5763 $0.1738
Realistic Case:
Cost per truck $130,118 $153,569 $106,550 $119,715
Cost per mile $0.9146 $1.0794 $0.7489 $0.8415
GHG cost per mile $0.1495 $0.1396 $0.0410 $0.0410
a Battery and charging equipment owned by third party and leased to fleet operator.
180
Primary factors influencing EV truck costs were economies of scale and battery
technology. Trucks driven less than 100 miles per day and centrally garaged are good
candidates for replacement with EVs. Buying multiple units leverages volume discounts
and fixed costs for electricity infrastructure upgrades. Li-ion battery technology is
continually improving to increase energy capacity and cycle life, and to decrease costs.
Under the realistic case, NPV lifecycle costs for Class 3 EV buy alternative
exceeded petroleum by $0.0347 per mile. Costs for Class 6 EV buy alternative were less
than petroleum by $0.1657 per mile. Under the base and realistic cases for both classes,
the EV lease alternative was less than petroleum. Marketability of EV leases depends on
the evolution of V2G technology and contract terms for ancillary services with utilities.
Results vary with duty cycle, utility, tax rates, specific corporate rates, manufacturers,
and other factors specific to a fleet operator. Without federal incentives, cost per mile
increases approximately $0.02 for CNG and $0.06 for the EV buy alternative.
Tables 35, 36, and 37 summarize the environmental, economic, and social risks,
costs, and benefits of petroleum, CNG, and EV fleet trucks. Environmental risks, costs,
and benefits diverged for EVs charged from various energy sources. The basis for risk
ratings was the sum of all risk factors from each risk section in the Analysis. For cost
ratings, the researcher rated the fuel type with the highest cost as 9.0 for comparability to
the highest potential risk rating. The researcher then prorated the other fuel types by
dividing 9.0 by the highest average cost and multiplying by the average costs for the
other fuel types. The basis for qualitative costs and benefits ratings was the sum of items
identified in each section, without weighing any factor as more or less than any other
factor.
181
In this study, the calculation for the overall ratings added the risk and cost ratings,
less the benefit ratings. A lower overall rating suggested a better alternative. However,
because the basis for rating risks, costs, and benefits differ, adding them is only one
means of comparing total results. Analyses should include a close comparison of the
risks, costs, and benefits separately across fuel types. Fleet operators must make their
own assessment on comparing risks, costs, and benefits applicable to their specific
business, strategies, and goals.
Table 35
Environmental Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type
Petroleum CNG EV
Risks
Sustainable No No Coal-No;
Nuclear-Yes;
Renewable energy-Yes
GHG:
Emissions CO2, CO; VOC CH4 Coal-Sulfur
CO2 pounds/mile 1.31 1.05 0.00 to 1.05
In distribution Yes Yes Coal-Yes
Other Evaporation Evaporation None
Other air toxins Particle matter None Coal dust;
Nuclear radiation
Water issues Leaks, spills; Chemicals and Coal-dust runoff;
Rainwater runoff water used in Nuclear-temperatures;
extraction; Lithium toxicity;
Rainwater runoff Wind-offshore towers
Land issues Change to Micro Coal-surface disruption,
earth’s structure earthquakes rock falls, mine collapses;
Nuclear-damming;
Wind/solar-Surface area
Rating 17.6 9.1 16.3
(continued)
182
Environmental Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type (continued)
Petroleum CNG EV
Costs
GHG costs:
Class 3 $58,321 $46,478 $0 to $21,513
Class 6 $194,403 $154,928 $0 to $58,321
Rating 9.0 7.2 1.9
Benefits
Renewable energy No No Yes
use and storage
Recyclable No No Yes (lithium)
Rating 0.0 0.0 2.0
Overall
Rating 26.6 16.3 16.2
Table 36
Economic Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type
Petroleum CNG EV
Risks
Fuel foreign 57.0% 13.0% 2.0%
sourced a
Fuel security US vulnerable to
foreign politics and
supply
Fuel sourcing Demand increasing as Limited transmission
supply decreasing; and storage
Extracting process
increasingly difficult
Fuel distribution Lack of and Stability of grid;
high costs of Capacity of grid to
public stations support EV growth
Fuel pricing Political pressure to Add highway tax to EVs
artificially reduce
prices
Mileage range 250 – 430 150 – 300 80 – 100
Rating 22.9 6.7 16.5
(continued)
183
Economic Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type (continued)
Petroleum CNG EV
Costs
NPV of LCA:
Class 3 $649,798 $860,441 Buy $972,757;
Lease $638,608
Class 6 $1,271,435 $1,594,433 Buy $1,434,438;
Lease $1,203,406
Rating-Class 3 7.0 9.0 Buy 7.6; Lease 6.8
Benefits
Opportunities Provide grid stabilization;
Provide back-up energy;
New revenue to utilities in
off-peak period
Fuel sourcing Relatively abundant Ability to convert
and easy to retrieve existing vehicles
in large quantities;
Transportable in its
natural form
Fuel pricing No Yes Yes
stability b
Nationwide Yes Yes No
network of trucks
Technology Improving for CAFE Increasing battery
standards efficiencies, lower costs
Rating 3.0 3.0 5.0
Overall
Note. CAFE = Corporate Average Fuel Economy, for regulations issued by Congress on medium and heavy
duty trucks.
a
Imports as percent of total consumption for year-to-date September 2012 (EIA, 2012h).
b
Average annual fuel cost changes:
Historical (2003 to 2012) +12.7% gas, +16.6% diesel, -3.1% CNG, +3.2% electricity
Forecast (2013 to 2024) +2.6% gas, +3.6% diesel, +2.7% CNG, +2.2% electricity
184
Table 37
Social Risks, Costs, and Benefits by Fuel Type
Petroleum CNG EV
Risks
Safety Sourcing, Sourcing, Sourcing,
distribution, and distribution, and distribution, and use
use use
Social justice Developing
countries’ demand
greater share of
supply
Rating 6.8 4.6 1.7
Costs
Health and welfare Smog in populated Smog from coal plants
areas; in unpopulated areas
Loud;
Smelly
Complexity Gear shifts; Gear shifts; Driver re-training;
1,000 parts 1,000 parts Mechanic training
Trade deficit Wealth transfer
and $500 billion
GDP losses
annually to U.S.
economy
Rating 6.0 2.0 3.0
Benefits
Selection of make Large Primarily by Branding
and models conversion
Rating 1.0 1.0 1.0
Overall
Rating 11.8 5.6 3.7
As shown in Table 35, EVs rated a higher environmental risk than CNG,
primarily due to use of coal or nuclear in generating electricity. GHG costs for CNG
were 20.3% less than costs for petroleum, and for Class 3 and Class 6 EVs, trucks were
on average 63.1% and 70.0% less than costs for petroleum, respectively. There were no
185
environmental benefits to petroleum or CNG, while EVs promoted use of renewable
energy and recycling materials. Environmentally overall, EVs rated favorably compared
to petroleum and CNG.
In Table 36, economic risks primarily comprised petroleum fuel-related issues,
and EV grid stability and limited mileage range. Economic cost ratings for Class 3 trucks
were greatest for EVs bought, but lowest for EVs leased; and for Class 6 trucks under
EVs bought were greater than petroleum, but less than CNG, and were lowest for EVs
leased. Economic benefits of EV energy opportunities, fuel pricing stability, and
evolving technologies outweighed petroleum and CNG fuel sourcing and truck models.
Economically overall, EVs rated better than petroleum, but worse than CNG.
Social risks for EVs were less than for petroleum and CNG per Table 37. Social
costs for EVs were less than for petroleum, but greater than for CNG. All had equal
social benefits. Socially overall, EVs rated favorably compared to petroleum and CNG.
Overall, petroleum rated the worst for environmental, economic, and social
factors. EVs rated 0.1 points better than CNG for environmental factors and 1.9 points
better than CNG for social factors. Economically, EVs ranged from 5.0 to 6.4 points
worse than CNG, primarily due to risks for grid capacity, highway fuel tax, and range.
186
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, the researcher will discuss the importance of the research findings,
provide an analytical conclusion, advise on professional practice implications, make
recommendations for implementation, and propose areas for further research. This
exploratory case study provides a holistic analysis of the environmental, economic, and
social risks, costs, and benefits of petroleum, compressed natural gas (CNG), and electric
vehicles (EVs). Participants in the study consisted of three fleet operators, which
managed 21,467 trucks in total, primarily consisting of Class 3 and Class 6 trucks,
defined by gross vehicle weight by the Federal Highway Administration as described in
Table 2 from Chapter One.
The researcher applied a mixed methods approach to the analyses. Qualitative
input from the participants’ fleet managers provided insight on the companies’ profiles
and use of alternative fuels through survey responses. In addition, fleet managers
assessed the probability and severity of environmental, economic, and social risks related
to petroleum- and CNG-fueled internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (ICEVs) and
EVs. Quantitative input from participants included the companies’ fleet truck data and
duty cycles for calculating the net present value (NPV) of lifecycle costs for the lifecycle
cost analysis (LCA).
The study provides a model for risks, costs, and benefits analysis for fleet
operators to use in decision-making of petroleum, CNG, or EV truck acquisitions.
Processes involved in creating this model comprise:

187
 Sorting criteria for selecting potential for EV trucks, including class size, current
fuel type, average daily miles, and central location. Additional criteria for EV
lease opportunities include operating hours per week and state location. See
Figure 17, Model to sort participant fleet data for EV criteria, in Chapter Three for
details.
 Calculating GHG costs per mile based on pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) per
gallon equivalent by fuel type, mileage, and estimated cost per ton of CO2. See
Table 20, NPV of GHG Cost by Fuel Type for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks, in
Chapter Four for calculations.
 Preparing LCA, including estimated costs for vehicle acquisitions, conversions,
batteries, and fueling equipment, less incentives and residual values, and NPV of
costs for operations, interest, and tax benefits. For summary results, see Tables
22 through 31 in Chapter Four, and for detailed results see Appendices I and J,
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 and Class 6 Trucks,
respectively.
 Analyzing risk factors from multiplying the probability by the severity for each
risk; costs for GHG, NPV lifecycle, and negative social effects; and benefits for
all positive effects. The analyses result in an overall quantified rating by fuel
type, in which a lower number suggests a better alternative. See Tables 35
through 37 in Chapter Four for summary analyses.
The analyses in this study focus on participant data for Class 3 and Class 6 trucks
as representing the spectrum of potential EV Class 1 to Class 7 trucks. Class 8 trucks
typically run long hauls and therefore are not conducive to EVs (Wagner, 1999).
188
Purchases of new Class 3 to Class 6 trucks totaled 329,000 units in 2011, per the latest
annual Transportation Energy Data Book prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE; Davis, et al., 2012). Based on average mileage rates per Table 2, the researcher
calculates that if one third of these trucks were EVs, petroleum use would decrease by
181 million gallons valued at approximately $566 million, and GHG by 2 million tons
valued at approximately $200 million in the first year. After 12 years of EVs as one third
of new vehicle purchases, total petroleum and GHG savings would exceed $9 billion
annually (in 2013 dollars).
Discussion of Findings
This discussion covers the importance of the environmental, economic, and social
risks, costs, and benefits findings as summarized in Tables 35 to 37. All vehicle fuels
carry risks (Lyden, 2012). Balancing how and when to use each fuel mitigates the risks.
Costs vary by duty cycle and truck size (McMorrin et al., 2012). Intangible risks and
benefits are subjective. Assessments and values of risks and benefits differ by fleet
operator, depending on company structure, strategies, and goals, and over time. The
holistic approach of this study viewed factors for parties affected by the environmental,
economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits, not solely for a fleet operators’ economic
benefit. Holistic solutions seek to create a win-win for all parties (Savory, 1999).
This study quantified the qualitative risks, costs, and benefits, and developed an
overall rating for each fuel alternative by category. Ratings for risks resulted from
participants’ assessment of probability and severity for each risk. Cost ratings weighed
the highest cost option as 9.0 as comparable to the highest risk rating, then prorated the
other cost ratings as dividing 9.0 by the highest cost and multiplying by each other cost.
189
Benefit ratings counted the number of benefits identified by the researcher for each fuel
type, without weighing the impact of any one benefit over another.
The overall rating adds the risk and cost ratings, and then deducts the benefits
rating. This study suggests the best overall alternative reflected the lowest rating
resulting from some combination of lower risk and costs and/or offset by higher benefits
than the other alternatives. However, adding the risks, costs, and benefit ratings for one
overall rating is only one means for comparison. Analyzing each rating across fuel types
provides scrutiny for each fleet operator. Table 38 summarizes the ratings from Tables
35 to 37.
Table 38
Summary of Ratings
EV
Environmental: Risks 17.6 9.1 16.3 16.3
Costs 9.0 7.2 1.9 1.9
Benefits 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
Overall 26.6 16.3 16.2 16.2
Economic: Risks 22.9 6.7 16.5 16.5

Costs-Class 3 7.0 9.0 7.6 6.8
Costs-Class 6 7.6 9.0 6.2 7.0
Benefits 3.0 3.0 5.0 5.0
Overall-Class 3 26.9 12.7 19.1 18.3
Overall-Class 6 27.5 12.7 17.7 18.5
Social: Risks 6.8 4.6 1.7 1.7

Costs 6.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Benefits 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Overall 11.8 5.6 3.7 3.7
Note. Lower rating is better for risks and costs; higher rating is better for benefits.
190
Environmental
Environmental risks were lowest for CNG and highest for petroleum. GHG costs
are lowest for EVs and highest for petroleum. Only EVs demonstrate environmental
benefits as classified in this study. For overall environmental factors identified in this
study, EVs prove the best alternative, followed closely by CNG, while petroleum proves
the worst alternative.
Environmental risks. As petroleum, CNG, and coal are not sustainable, fleet
operators in the United States (US) must eventually move to alternative motor fuels, such
as EVs charged with electricity generated from renewable energy sources (Lyden, 2012).
Fleet operators are prudent to review alternatives sooner rather than later as changes to
fleet trucks with operating lives over 10 years require advanced planning. Fleet
operations may require more than one alternative solution to fit various duty cycles of a
fleet truck portfolio.
Emissions of CO2 are greatest from petroleum, but methane from CNG is
potentially more damaging as a GHG (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA],
2012a). In addition to direct vehicle miles traveled, distribution and evaporation leaks of
petroleum and CNG cause GHG emissions. Sourcing and using petroleum, CNG, and
coal also damages plant and aquatic life, contaminates drinking water, and disrupts the
earth’s structure (Brown, 2007; EPA, 2012e; Lovins & Datta, 2006; U.S. Department of
the Interior, 1979; U.S. Geological Survey, 2012).
Environmental risks for EVs primarily related to the use of coal in generating
electricity for charging EVs. However, EVs charged at night generally use excess
capacity of electricity rather than requiring additional coal generated electricity. In which
191
case, EVs do not increase use of coal or related GHG. Most environmental risks not only
dissipate for EVs charged with electricity generated from renewable energy sources, EVs
allow for increased use of renewable energy through battery storage. Risks related to
wind and solar include disruption to off shore waters or land areas (Hopkins, 2010). In
addition, solvents used in manufacturing and components of lithium batteries are toxic if
not managed properly (EPA, 2012d).
Environmental costs. Costing environmental damage from vehicle fuel on air,
water, and land is difficult due to the unknown breadth, extent, and repairs of damage
(Hanley & Spash, 2003). Estimating a cost based only on CO2 emissions provides a
comparable measurement for GHG damage. Identifying responsible parties and
assessing costs for repairing damage to water and land is extensive as well. Nonetheless,
costs for CO2 emissions provide a starting point (Greene & Plotkin, 2011).
At an estimated $100 per ton of CO2 from averages in the literature review, the
researcher calculates GHG lifecycle costs per mile on a NPV for Class 3 trucks at
$0.0449 for diesel, $0.0418 for CNG, and $0.0272 for EVs at a national average of
energy sources used in generating electricity. GHG lifecycle costs per mile on a NPV for
Class 6 trucks are $0.1495 for diesel, $0.1396 for CNG, and $0.0410 for average EVs.
GHG costs for EVs range from zero when charged with electricity generated from
renewable energy sources to approximately the same as CNG for electricity generated
from coal using carbon capture and storage (CCS; Jaramillo, 2007). The GHG cost per
mile for EVs charged with electricity generated from natural gas is approximately 50.0%
less than for vehicles directly fueled with CNG (Greene & Plotkin, 2011; Yuhnke &
Salisbury, n.d.). Thus, using natural gas as energy for generating electricity rather than as
192
a motor fuel is environmentally more cost effective. Most utilities generate electricity
from a mix of energy sources so that an estimated GHG cost per mile depends on
charging locations for fleet trucks (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Environmental benefits. Because of environmental risks and costs related to
coal produced for electricity, utilities are expanding renewable energy sources (NREL,
2002). Renewable energy used in generating electricity for charging EV batteries is
sustainable and more environmentally friendly. Furthermore, EVs may improve the use
of renewable energy by charging at night when wind power is available and demand is
otherwise low, and by storing solar and wind power otherwise wasted (Lund & Kempton,
2008). EV use of renewable energy may assist investor owned utilities in meeting state
regulated renewable portfolio standards (EPA, 2011).
According to Innes (2012), there is an abundance of lithium sources for mining.
In addition, recycling of lithium used in EV batteries provides future use in new batteries
without new material sourcing. Innes believes the high cost of lithium batteries ensures
that a high percentage of batteries are properly recycled.
Economic
Economic risks are lowest for CNG and highest for petroleum. The lowest NPV
lifecycle cost alternative for Class 3 trucks is EV lease and for Class 6 trucks is EV buy,
while CNG costs are the highest for both truck classes. Economic benefits are greatest
for EVs and equal for petroleum and CNG. For overall economic factors identified in
this study, CNGs prove the best alternative and petroleum proves the worst alternative.
Although EVs rated best for cost and benefits, risks related to the grid, road tax, and
limited range proved much greater than risks for CNG.

193
Economic risks. Foreign sourcing of oil risks US political and energy securities
(Electric Drive Transportation Association [EDTA], 2012a). Should foreign countries
limit their oil trade with the US, gasoline and diesel prices would escalate and the U.S.
economy would stall, similar to the oil crises in 1973, 1979, and 1980 (Mouawad, 2008;
U.S. Department of State , 2013). Basic economics foretell of oil price increases as
global oil demand increases and supply decreases (Yuhnke & Salisbury, n.d.). In
addition, decreases in viably extractable oil means increased sourcing costs. Given
historically volatile oil prices and future sourcing issues, petroleum is economically risky
(EDTA, 2012a). However, assessing the timing and extent of cost increases is difficult.
Risks of converting vehicles to CNG stem from lower mileage range coupled with
limited public fueling stations (Lyden, 2012). Alternatively, installing on-site CNG
fueling stations is costly. Economizing the station costs requires a large number of CNG
vehicles.
A primary cause of EV economic risks relates to electricity transmission. The
current grid infrastructure is not always stable and may not adequately serve the growth
of EVs in some areas (Tomic & Kempton, 2007). Building out renewable energy sources
requires additional infrastructure for transmission and energy storage. Operating EVs to
promote renewable energy use and to help stabilize the grid requires new technology,
complex contracts, and close management (Beck, 2009). Fleet operators should work
closely with local utilities when developing estimates and in implementing EVs.
Another risk to the economics of EVs is some form of federal and/or state
highway or road tax (Motavalli, 2011). Currently, federal and state governments provide
tax incentives to buyers of EVs, yet debates ensue over replacing the portion of road
194
maintenance funding from gasoline tax not charged to EV owners. Per Motavalli (2011),
the Washington State senate recently passed a $100 annual surcharge on EV owners as a
partial solution. Fleet operators should keep apprised of the road tax debate for economic
effects on both ICEVs and EVs, and weigh the risks accordingly.
Furthermore, limited mileage range, coupled with the time to refuel, is an
economic risk to fleet operators (DOE & EPA, 2012; McMorrin et al., 2012). Range
continues to increase and charging time to decrease with technology improvements
(EDTA, 2012a). Fleet operators must consider the risk of range issues and ability for
timely overnight battery charging. This risk may not exist for fleet trucks driven less than
100 miles per day.
Economic costs. Although asset costs are higher for EVs than for petroleum,
operating costs are lower for EVs than petroleum in all cases of Class 3 and Class 6
trucks, as shown in Tables 22 through 31. In fact, asset costs are less than the NPV
lifecycle operating costs for Class 6 petroleum trucks, as well as for EV lease
alternatives, based on petroleum fuel costs, for Class 6 base, best, and realistic cases.
Operating costs for buying EVs are low in Tables 22 through 31 primarily due to low fuel
costs per mile and maintenance at approximately one third that for petroleum or CNG.
Forecasted decreases in EV asset costs and increases in petroleum fuel costs will further
improve the value of EVs compared to petroleum vehicles.
In the realistic LCA cases, CNG asset costs are greater than petroleum and EVs,
while operating costs range between petroleum and EVs for both Class 3 and Class 6, per
Tables 26 and 31, respectively. Asset and operating costs for the EV lease alternative
195
intentionally tie to petroleum costs, depending on negotiated contract terms. Income tax
benefits for all fuel types approximate half of the total NPV lifecycle costs.
Although off site fueling saves asset costs for fueling stations, the limited number
of public CNG fueling stations (approximately 500 nationwide) and EV stations
(approximately 4,400 nationwide) may not be convenient for fleet operators (DOE &
EPA, 2012; Lyden, 2012). Increasing the number of CNG vehicles leverages the high
cost of a CNG fueling station; however, the high cost of conversions keep CNG costs
higher than petroleum even with an extension of the $0.50 tax credit per gallon beyond
2013. Using natural gas to generate electricity provides energy for 60.0% more miles
than the same amount of natural gas used directly as motor fuel (Yuhnke & Salisbury,
n.d.). Thus, using natural gas as energy for generating electricity rather than as a motor
fuel is economically more cost effective.
EV manufacturers advertise battery size rounded to 10 or 20 kWh (see Appendix
A, Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US. Right sizing EV batteries requires the
willingness and ability of truck manufacturers and battery suppliers to provide battery
packs in exact sizes. Bumping battery size to the next highest 10 or 20 kilowatt-hour
(kWh) adds costs for unused energy. Alternatively, a larger battery size requires less
frequent or lower charging levels and potentially extends battery life. Improvements in
battery technology decrease EV asset costs by lowering required kWh per mile per ton,
decrease battery cost per kWh, and increase battery life.
Economic benefits. A primary benefit of petroleum is the current ability to
extract and transport large quantities in its natural form (Lovins & Datta, 2006).
However, this benefit dissipates when easily extractable sources of oil decline. The
196
existing national network of truck dealers and repair stations are a benefit for the case of
petroleum and CNG, and the 164,000 nationwide fueling stations are a benefit for
petroleum (EERE, 2008b).
Although EVs risk straining an already unstable grid, they potentially provide
solutions for stability and renewable energy growth (Tomic & Kempton, 2007). Vehicle-
to-grid (V2G) technology allows utilities to draw energy back from EV batteries when
plugged-in for grid stabilization and other ancillary services. In addition, EV batteries
provide back-up energy in cases of grid failure. EVs charging at night may store and use
renewable energy otherwise idle. The incremental revenue to utilities in off-peak hours
may allow for a lower charging rate.
Social
Social risks are lowest for EVs and highest for petroleum. Social costs are lowest
for CNG and highest for petroleum. Social benefits are equal for all fuel types. For
overall social factors identified in this study, EVs prove the best alternative and
petroleum the worst alternative.
Social risks. All fuel types have various levels of safety issues in sourcing,
distribution, and use (Lyden, 2012). Manipulating energy requires knowledge, skill, and
great care. New sources and uses of energy require extensive testing and training, as was
once required for existing energy sources.
As developing countries’ demand for oil increases, the supply of oil decreases
faster (Spitzley et al., 2004). Increasing demand and diminishing supplies may create
global social tension. Other countries may resent the US using more than its share of
global oil on a per capita and production level. Historical military strife over oil may
escalate.
197
Social costs. Estimating health and welfare costs from vehicle fuels is difficult
due to the unknown breadth, extent, and remediation (Milbourn, 2009). Recognizing
health damage from sourcing and using vehicle fuels includes asthma, lung diseases, and
even death. Even if not measurable, these social costs are extensive. Despite
improvements from implementation of safety and mileage regulations, health and welfare
issues continue from mining and processing coal, and from vehicle emissions.
Although EVs require new training for drivers, EVs are easier to drive due to less
complex systems, such as manual gear changes (McMorrin et al., 2012). Driver training
for EVs also includes best practices for any fuel type, such as in moderating braking and
acceleration rates. Although EVs require new training for mechanics, EVs are easier to
repair than ICEVs, which include several complex processes and parts.
Although the U.S. trade deficit is generally an economic factor, it has social
impacts, as well. Since importing petroleum is half of the U.S. trade deficit, decreasing
petroleum use increases U.S. jobs and household income (EDTA, 2012a; San Francisco
Chronicle, 2013). Increased jobs increase government revenue, potentially decreasing
individual income tax rates. In addition, a lower trade deficit renders US companies
more competitive, allowing for further employment.
Social benefits. The long-term existence of petroleum vehicles means an
extensive selection of truck makes and models (Lyden, 2012). Introduction and
production of new EV truck models is slow. The current low production means
economies of scale limit profits of EV truck manufacturers and over price current models.
Alternatively, EVs are convertible using traditional truck chassis; however, very few
198
contractors currently exist (Castelaz & Nagrani, 2012). Marketing the social aspects of
using EVs improves corporate branding (McMorrin et al., 2012).
Overall Analytical Conclusions
Environmental
Although participants in this study rated environmental risks of EVs as greater
than risks from petroleum or CNG, renewable energy for charging EVs is sustainable.
EVs reduce GHG when charged from electricity generated from CNG, renewable energy
sources, or coal using CCS (Jaramillo, 2007). EVs provide storage for and use of
renewable energy when charged at night (Tomic & Kempton, 2007). Lithium used in EV
batteries is recyclable (Innes, 2012). Overall, this study found that EVs are an
environmentally viable alternative to petroleum and CNG fleet trucks and vans.
Economic
Although EVs may strain an already unstable grid, electricity sourcing is domestic
and stable (Lyden, 2012). Risk of full access to electricity due to weather, accidental
damage, or excess demand is a considerable risk to fleet operators when considering EV
trucks (Lovins, 2011a). Alternatively, EV batteries may provide services to help stabilize
the grid or energy for emergency needs (Kempton & Tomic, 2004). Fleet operators must
weigh the risk of cost increases for road tax (Motavalli, 2011). EV trucks driven close to
the range limits must consider this additional risk.
Key economic cost factors include leveraging the high costs of on-site fueling
stations for CNG and EVs across multiple vehicles, expected improvements in battery
technology, and comparison to petroleum fuel cost per mile. On a realistic case, the NPV
lifecycle costs of the EV lease alternative are less than costs for petroleum and CNG for
199
both Class 3 and Class 6 trucks, as are costs of the EV buy alternative for Class 6 trucks.
Figures 24 and 25 illustrate the components of LCA on a realistic case by assets and
expenses, and for GHG in bar chart form for Class 3 and Class 6 trucks, respectively.
Asset costs are initial cost outlays of trucks, conversions, and fueling stations net of
incentives, plus NPV of battery replacement costs, less NPV of residual values.
Expenses valued over the vehicle life of 12 years include operating and interest expenses
less income tax benefits, which includes a deduction for depreciation of asset costs. The
basis for NPV of GHG costs is $100 per ton of CO2 from source to wheel emissions.
LCA Class 3 Realistic Case

$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000 GHG
Expenses
$400,000
Asset
$200,000
$0
Petroleum CNG EV-buy EV-lease
Figure 24. Class 3 truck LCA bar chart for realistic case.
LCA Class 6 Realistic Case

$1,750,000
$1,500,000
$1,250,000
$1,000,000 GHG
$750,000 Expenses
$500,000 Asset
$250,000
$0
Petroleum CNG EV-buy EV-lease
Figure 25. Class 6 truck LCA bar chart for realistic case.
200
Figures 24 and 25 reflect significant costs in assets for fueling stations in CNG
and for batteries in the EV buy alternative. Expenses for the EV buy alternative primarily
reflect the low fuel costs of electricity. The EV lease alternative initial asset cash outlays
approximate those for petroleum, yet the operating and GHG costs are less than
petroleum. EV economics will continue to improve compared to ICEVs depending on
average daily miles, petroleum MPG, and continuously improving EV technologies. On
an economic cost basis, EVs are a viable alternative to petroleum and CNG fueled trucks.
EVs prove additional economic benefits by providing grid stabilization, back up
energy, and new uses for renewable energy. Stable electric pricing provides fleet
operators a comfort level in budgeting and cost analytics. Opportunities for improved
technology will further benefit EVs. On an economic benefit basis, EVs are a viable
alternative to petroleum and CNG fueled trucks. Overall, this study found that EVs are
an economically viable alternative to petroleum fleet trucks and vans, but not to CNG
fleet trucks and vans.
Social
Although EVs have safety risks similar to petroleum and CNG, they do not
provoke global social issues, such as with oil supply and demand (Spitzley et al., 2004).
Electricity emits smog primarily in unpopulated areas, whereas petroleum emits smog
primarily in populated areas (EDTA, 2012a). EVs require new training for drivers and
mechanics; however, they are less complex than petroleum or CNG vehicles (McMorrin
et al., 2012). Production of EV trucks is still very limited, although conversions are
possible. Marketing EV efforts improves corporate branding (McMorrin et al., 2012).

201
Overall, this study found that EVs are a socially viable alternative to petroleum and CNG
fleet trucks and vans.
Overall Conclusion
This study questioned the environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and
benefits of EVs compared to fossil-fueled vehicles, primarily petroleum and CNG. The
hypothesis was that EVs are an environmentally, economically, and socially viable
alternative to ICEVs for commercial fleets of trucks and vans. This study quantified
qualitative benefits without consideration to extent of each benefit to fleet operators and
considered one overall analysis method that added risk ratings and cost ratings, and
subtracted benefits ratings. This method provides one means of comparing the
alternatives; however, fleet operators should separately consider the risks, costs, and
benefits by alternative as well. Per Bernstein (1996), risk analysis also requires a “gut
view” (p. 49).
Per this study’s overall analysis, EVs appear an environmentally and socially
viable alternative to petroleum and CNG fueled trucks. Furthermore, on a cost and
benefits basis, EV trucks appear an economically viable alternative to petroleum and
CNG, and on a risk basis, EV trucks appear an economically viable alternative to
petroleum. However, considerable economic risks exist for EVs compared to CNG
trucks, primarily due to grid stability, road tax, and mileage range.
EV trucks are also limited to certain duty cycle conditions and manufacturing of
EV trucks are limited in production (Bellis, 2012). V2G technology and processes are
not yet marketable. EVs may require costly electricity transmission upgrades in some
areas. As technology and production related to EVs progress and costs decline, viability
202
of EVs will improve (Mraz, 2012). In the meantime, fleet operators should consider EVs
under their specific risk tolerances and benefit values.
The researcher found that CNG would environmentally and economically better
serve as an energy source for generating electricity than as a motor fuel (Jaramillo, 2007;
Yuhke & Salisbury, n.d.). Generating electricity with CNG produces less GHG and
provides energy for more miles than running CNG as a motor fuel. Replacing coal with
CNG to generate electricity and using electricity to power vehicles reduces GHG from
tailpipe emissions in urban areas, reduces GHG from electricity generation, produces
more energy, and eliminates safety, health, and welfare issues related to coal.
Implications for Professional Practice
The models in this study for sorting EV truck criteria, calculating GHG costs per
mile, calculating NPV lifecycle costs, and analyzing risks, costs, and benefits provide the
tools for fleet operators to assess where EV trucks best fit in their fleet operations.
Leasing EV batteries and charging stations reduce the upfront costs of acquiring EV
trucks. The NPV lifecycle costs for EV truck leasing approximate the costs for
petroleum trucks, yet reduce tailpipe emissions to zero and promote use of renewable
energy. Fleet operators should weigh the risks and benefits, and calculate costs based on
their own tolerance and criteria specific to their fleet.
Recommendations for Implementation
The tools in this study assist fleet operators in making EV truck acquisition
decisions with a holistic approach. Many assumptions in this study need testing as new
information becomes available. Companies must consider their own data for processing.
203
Sort for EV Criteria
Fleet operators should update their fleet truck database for information on truck
age, class, fuel type, average daily mileage, garaged location, and number of operating
hours per day and days per week. Fleet operators then sort the data by these criteria to
determine truck replacement schedule. Determining where EV trucks may replace
petroleum trucks includes those in Class 1 to Class 7 driven less than 100 miles per day
and centrally garaged. Consideration for EV lease requires further sorting of trucks in
use less than 60 hr per week and located in states using an Independent System Operator
(ISO) or Regional Transmission Organization (RTO). See Appendix G for a map of
states operating with an ISO or RTO.
Calculate GHG Costs
Fleet operators may calculate the GHG costs per mile using the template in this
study. Specific fleet data includes average miles per gallon, miles per year, number of
vehicles, average expected life of vehicles in years, and discount rate applicable to fleet
operator for this analysis. Fleet operators may want to calculate GHG costs by truck
class for comparison.
Create LCA
Assuming duty cycles for trucks needing replacement fit EV criteria, fleet
operators then discuss their duty cycle information and required specifications with
petroleum and EV truck manufacturers. Fleet operators gather quotes from truck
manufacturers, charging station suppliers, electricians, and other suppliers or service
providers, as needed. See Appendix A, Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US, and
Appendix K, Summary of Level 2 Charging Stations.

204
Fleet operators should meet with the electric utilities supporting their fleet
locations to discuss requirements for energy amounts, charging times, and locations.
Fleet operators should negotiate costs of required electrical upgrades and rates per kWh
with the utility, considering nighttime charging and potential incremental revenue to
utilities.
Fleet operators should contact EV battery and charging station lessors to discuss
potential leases or fuel supply contracts. In addition to lease or fuel costs, negotiated
terms may include responsibilities for specifications, acquisitions, electric upgrades,
installations, maintenance, taxes, charging times, battery replacement, contract life, and
renewal terms. However, until V2G operations are in practice, EV leasing is limited or
non-existent.
Once financial data is collected, fleet operators should input data into the LCA
templates from this study. Specific duty cycle data for fleet operators include:
 Average miles driven and desired buffer miles per day.
 Operating days per week and weeks per year.
 Amount of time available for battery charging and time of day.
 Average estimated cargo weight.
 Identification for existing petroleum fueled trucks as gas or diesel.
 Estimated energy required for vocational use.
 Estimated percentage of time fleet operator drives trucks on road grades
exceeding 5.0%, drive at speeds exceeding 35 MPH, and use heat or cooling in
cab.
 Use of on-site fueling.

205
 Number of total trucks and number of trucks per location.
Specific financial data input includes the fleet operator’s rates for discounting, interest,
net income tax, and property tax.
Data input from truck manufacturers and service providers quotes include:
 Vehicle life expectancy.
 Truck weight and equipment weight without cargo.
 Vehicle cost plus upfit costs.
 Available federal and state incentives.
 Estimated truck residual values at end of useful life.
 Conversion costs if comparing to CNG.
 Estimated mileage by fuel type.
 Estimated maintenance costs and down time.
 Recommended off-board management software, if any.
In addition to cargo and truck weight already input, battery information from EV
truck manufacturer and/or battery supplier includes estimated battery weight, expected
kWh / mile – ton rating, recommended maximum state of charge and minimum depth of
discharge, battery cost per kWh, estimated future battery cost per kWh for anticipated
replacement period, and estimated labor costs for battery replacement.
CNG fueling station data include capacity size and cost of tank, efficiency rating,
installation costs, available federal and state incentives, estimated useful life, and
estimated residual value at end of useful life. EV charging equipment data include
recommended charging level, capacity in kWh, estimated time to charge, cost, efficiency
rating, installation costs, available federal and state incentives, estimated useful life, and
206
estimated residual value at end of useful life. Information needed related to the fleet
operators’ existing electrical structure includes costs for any transmission upgrades
required, costs for any facilities’ wiring upgrades or dedicated circuitry required, and
estimated circuitry efficiencies. Fuel data include current and forecasted costs per unit by
fuel type.
Analyze Risks, Costs, and Benefits
A holistic approach for truck acquisition decision-making includes assessing the
qualitative environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits identified in this
study. Fleet operators may modify or add to the factors, then apply their own ratings and
analyses. Quantitative cost inputs include the NPV lifecycle costs and GHG costs.
Avoiding duplication of factors requires careful consideration. Lack of a risk or cost
from one fuel type is not a benefit on another fuel type.
One final rating computed by adding risks and costs, and deducting benefits for
each fuel type provides one means to assist the fleet operator in making a decision.
However, fleet operators should analyze risks, costs, and benefits for alternatives
separately as well, since these three factors are not necessarily comparable when added
together for one rating. In addition, fleet operators should consider company history,
culture, structure, and ability to manage alternative-fueled trucks in making their final
acquisition decisions. Timing and extent of alternative-fueled vehicles will differ by
company. Fleet operators must stay current on changes in alternative-fueled vehicles for
their own decision-making.

207
Areas for Further Research
As EV trucks are relatively new to market, with technology and production still
evolving, future research on the environmental, economic, and social viability of EVs for
truck fleets may show improvements from results of this study. This study included
assumptions where empirical data did not yet exist on a marketable basis. EVs promote
use and storage of renewable energy, yet renewable energy sources are still in an infancy
stage in the US. Data for utilities’ fixed and variable supplies were limited. This study
used national averages to keep anonymity of participants, yet performing studies on a
local or regional level may prove more accurate with specific results. In addition to
further quantifying some of the qualitative data in this study, further research may
broaden the use and understanding of alternative fueled vehicles.
Update for Technology Improvements
Varied chemical levels in lithium-based batteries meet the diverse needs for
energy. As battery and charging equipment technology continues to improve, new
studies may provide improved financial results from this study. In addition, future
studies may further explore safety, sourcing, and toxicity factors related to lithium.
Although the literature provided good information on V2G benefits, operationally
V2G is still in prototype studies. A difficulty with operating V2G is coordination
amongst truck, battery, and charging equipment manufacturers; fleet operators; utilities;
ISOs and RTOs; and credit facilitators. The U.S. Department of Defense is expanding
use of V2G (Simeone, 2013). A study using empirical evidence from the practical
operations of this innovative technology and processes would be provocative. Likewise,
EV leasing relying on V2G services will prove interesting.

208
Verify Use of Excess and Renewable Energy
The literature included many articles on the ability of EVs to promote renewable
energy through direct use and storage. However, no studies showed empirical evidence
on a market level. Research on local or regional levels may cover current fixed supply of
electricity and forecasted decreases due to anticipated coal plant closings as they age,
variable demand by hour, planned new renewable energy capacity and estimated timing,
and potential of EV charging demand by hour.
As coal plants age go offline due to age, total fixed energy supply decreases and
provides opportunity for alternative energy sources, such as natural gas. Solar and wind
assist in meeting peak demand. Additionally, wind may generate electricity at night for
growth in charging EVs. Quantifying the fixed and variable supply by energy source
provides information for better planning of renewable energy sources and uses. Future
studies may test if EVs charged at night do or do not require increased energy supply or
increased GHG. Studies may also quantify incremental revenue to utility companies.
Determine Electricity Infrastructure Needs
Analyzing electricity supply and demand on a local level provides results that are
more specific. Required upgrade costs for decision-making by fleet operators is specific
to each fleet location and the utility servicing that location. Therefore, financial results
will vary by location. A study using actual specific local data and estimating costs for
specific upgrades may prove interesting results.
Apply to Additional Truck Types or Specific Fleet Operators
This study used fleet participants that operate trucks for delivery of goods.
Utilities, telecommunication, construction, and other service providers use trucks as

209
vocational tools. These tools require greater amounts of energy. Vocational trucks
potentially operate on differing schedules from delivery trucks. A study analyzing
vocational trucks would add to the research.
This study focused solely on EVs primarily due to environmental benefits of zero
reliance on petroleum and zero tailpipe emissions, and economic benefits of battery size
conducive for V2G opportunities and reduced maintenance without an ICE. However,
plug-in Hybrid EVs (PHEVs) provide greater mileage range. A study to test the
environmental, economic, and social risks, costs, and benefits of PHEVs compared to
petroleum or CNG may prove feasible for fleet trucks driven over 100 miles daily, and
depending on lease structure and fleet operator goals.
Applying this intrinsic case study to a specific fleet operator would provide
empirical evidence. Although this study used sample data from participants, much of the
manufacturers’ and market data comprised averages and assumptions. Working closely
with one specific fleet operator would advance this research for practical purposes.
Estimate Effects on Federal and State Highway Tax Revenue
To fund highway maintenance, the U.S. federal government and states assess a
tax on retail sales of petroleum. Replacing petroleum with EVs reduces these
government funds. Governments may need to increase the petroleum tax rates, assess a
tax on EVs, and/or find funding elsewhere. A study to assess the effect of EVs on
highway tax may assist in governments’ decision-making.

210
REFERENCES
Ackerman, F., & Stanton, E. A. (2011). Climate risks and carbon prices: Revising the
social cost of carbon. Economics e-Journal, 2011-40. Retrieved from
hiip://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2011-40
Alexander, C., & Marshall, M. (2006). The risk matrix: Illustrating the importance of
risk management strategies. Journal of Extension, 44(2).
Anair, D., & Mahmassani, A. (2012). State of charge: Electric vehicles global warming
emissions and fuel-cost savings across the United States. Union of Concerned
Scientists.
Alternative Energy eMagazine (2012, February 28). Envia Systems achieves world
record energy density for rechargeable lithium-ion battery. Retrieved from
hiip://www.altenergymag.com/news/2012/02/28/envia-systems-achieves-world-
record-energy-density-for-rechargeable-lithium-ion-batteries/23458
Antich, M. (2012, January). Top 5 challenges facing commercial fleets. Automotive

Fleet. Retrieved from http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Green-
Fleet/Article/Story/2012/01/Top-5-Challenges-Facing-Commercial-Fleets.aspx
Argonne National Laboratory (2012). Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and

energy use in transportation model. Retrieved from http://greet.es.anl.gov/
Ashworth, A. (1989, March). Life-cycle costing: A practical tool? Cost Engineering,

31(3), 8-11.
Automotive Fleet (2011). Statistics: Light truck operating costs. Automotive Fleet, 37.
Automotive Fleet (2012). Automotive fleet 500. Retrieved from http://www.automotive-

fleet.com/Magazine/Issue/2012/07.aspx
Aven, T. (2011). On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk,
vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Analysis, 31(4).
Azure Dynamics (2012). Azure Dynamics Corporation presentation. Azure Dynamics

Corporation.
Balqon (2013). Balqon store: 12 volt lithium battery - 90 AHR. Retrieved from
hiip://www.balqon.com/store.php#!/~/product/category=4388904&id=18852825
Banvait, H. (2009). Optimal energy management system of plug-in hybrid electric

vehicle. Purdue University.
Battery University (2012). Is lithium-ion the ideal battery? Retrieved from

hiip://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/is_lithium_ion_the_ideal_battery
211
Beck, L. J. (2009). V2G-101: A text about vehicle-to-grid. Lexington, KY: Self-

published.
Bellis, M. (2012). History of electric vehicles. The New York Times Company.
Retrieved from http://inventors.about.com/od/estartinventions/a/History-Of-
Electric-Vehicles.htm
Bernstein, P. L. (1996). Against the gods: The remarkable story of risk. United States
and Canada: John Wiley & Sons.
Brown, V. (2007). Industry issues: Putting the heat on gas. Environmental Health
Perspectives, 115(2), A76. Retrieved from
hiip://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1817691/
California Energy Commission (2012). Compressed natural gas (CNG) as a

transportation fuel. Retrieved from
hiip://www.consumerenergycenter.org/transportation/afvs/cng.html
Callaway, M. (2011). The energy price challenge. Power Efficiency white paper.
CALSTART (2012). Preparing for the road ahead: 2011 annual report. CALSTART.
Campbell, C. J., & Laherrere, J. H. (1998). The end of cheap oil. Scientific American,
78-83.
Castelaz, J., & Nagrani, S. (2012). Alternative fuels: Electric and natural gas will
coexist. Motiv Power Systems. Retrieved from hiip://motivps.com/pdfs/Motiv-
and-Natural-Gas.pdf
Center for Automotive Research (2011). Deployment rollout estimate of electric

vehicles: 2011-2015.
Center for Sustainability Systems (2011, September). Carbon footprints factsheet.

University of Michigan.
Clean Cities (2012). Colorado PEV readiness plan. Project Fever committee meeting.
Clipper Creek (2012). Three things you need to know to determine your electric vehicle
charging time. Retrieved from hiip://www.clippercreek.com/blog/three-things-
you-need-to-know-to-determine-your-electric-vehicle-charging-time/
CNGPrices (2013). About CNG: Clean burning. CNGPrices.com. Retrieved from

hiip://www.cngprices.com/index.php
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
212
Crist, P. (2012). Electric vehicles revisited: Costs, subsidies, and prospects.

International Transportation Forum, Discussion Paper 2012-03.
Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R.G. (2011). Transportation energy data book:
Edition 30. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis.
Davis, S. C., Diegel, S. W., & Boundy, R.G. (2012). Transportation energy data book:
Edition 31. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis.
Dehamna, A. & Bloom, E. (2011). Energy storage on the grid. Pike Research.
Dodder, R., Yelverton, W., & Felgenhauer, T. (2011). Water and greenhouse gas
tradeoffs associated with a transition to a low carbon transportation system.
International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 63991.
Dul, J., & Hak, T. (2008). Case study methodology in business research. Burlington,
MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Duncan, R., & Osborne, M. J. (2005). Report on transportation convergence. Austin City
Manager and Austin Energy, response to Council Resolution 040729-78.
Edison Electric Institute (2011). Utility guide to plug-in electric vehicle readiness.
Edison Electric Institute.
Electric Drive Transportation Association (2012a). Issues. Retrieved from

hiip://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/27103/TPL/LandingPage2/pid/2
7103
Electric Drive Transportation Association (2012b). Pathways. Retrieved from

hiip://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/sp/i/27117/TPL/LandingPage1/pid/2
7117
Electric Drive Transportation Association (2012c, January). Electric drive by the

numbers. Electric Vehicle Fact Sheet.
Electric Drive Transportation Association (2012d, April 18). Ford launches documentary
series, education push & electric car to help customers make greener shift.
Retrieved from http://electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=d/ReleaseDetails/i/29263
Electric Power Research Institute (2007). Environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid

electric vehicles (Volume 2). EPRI, 1015326.
Electric Power Research Institute (2011a). Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) data dictionary: A

resource for acquiring data on V2G and related fields. EPRI Technical Update,
April 2011, 1022461.
Electric Power Research Institute (2011b). Transportation electrification: A technology

overview. EPRI Technical Report, July 2011, 1021334.
213
Electrification Coalition (2009). Fleet electrification roadmap.
Electrification Coalition (2010). Economic impact of the electrification roadmap.
Energy and Environmental Consultants (2012). General info: Natural gas markets.
Retrieved from http://www.eecc.eu/GeneralInfo.aspx?page=NaturalGasMarkets
Energydefinitions (2012). Retrieved from http://energydefinitions.com/G.php
EV Project, the (2012). Education. Retrieved from

hiip://www.theevproject.com/education.php
EV-Propulsion (2011). Some basic EV calculations. Retrieved from http://ev-

propulsion.com/EV-calculations.html
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013). Regional Transmission Organizations

map. Retrieved from hiip://www.ferc.gov/industries/electric/indus-act/rto/rto-
map.asp
Fiksel, J. (2009). Design for environment: A guide to sustainable product development:

Eco-efficient product development (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fleet Energy Company (2011). Use of plug-in electric vehicles as energy storage. White
Paper to Department of Defense.
Ford Motor Company (2011). Commercial truck: Alternative fuel buyer’s guide. Ford
Division Commercial Truck Sales and Marketing, AOC 2503.
Ford Motor Company (2012). How electric vehicles work. Retrieved from
hiip://www.ford.com/technology/electric/howevswork/
Francfort, J. (1998). Electric vehicle fleet operations in the United States. Presentation
to 31st International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation.
Gaines, L., Stodolsky, F., Cunca, R., & Eberhardt, J. (1998). Life-cycle analysis for
heavy vehicles. Argonne National Laboratory.
Gartner, J. & Gohn, B. (2012). Pike pulse report: Electric vehicle batteries. Pike
Research.
Gartner, J. (2011). Electric vehicles: Ten predictions for 2012. Pike Research.
Gartner, J., & Wheelock, C. (2011). Electric vehicle charging equipment. Pike
Research.
General Electric (2012). EV trends and forecasts. Retrieved from

hiip://www.ge.com/thegeshow/swfs/e1c4.swf
Gibson, B., & Gartner, J. (2011). Vehicle to grid technologies. Pike Research.
214
Greene, D. L. & Plotkin, S.E. (2011). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from U.S.
Transportation. Argonne National Laboratory prepared for Pew Center for
Global Change.
Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the complex definition of risk: A systems-based approach.

Risk Analysis, 29(12), 1647-1654.
Hancock, D. R., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Hanley, N., & Spash, C. L. (2003). Cost-benefit analysis and the environment.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Harden, M. (2012, March 27). EPA seeks tighter emission rules at power plants. Denver
Business Journal.
Hidrue, M., Parsons, G., Kempton, W., & Gardner, M. (2011). Willingness to pay for
electric vehicles and their attributes. University of Delaware, Working paper
2011-02.
Holistic Management International (2010). The essence of holistic management: a

holistic management primer. In Practice Special Edition, 2-16.
www holisticmanagement org.
Hone, D. (2012, June 29). Is $23 per tonne the right carbon price for Australia? The
Energy Collective. Retrieved from
hiip://theenergycollective.com/davidhone/88846/23-tonne-right-price-australia
Hopkins, M. (2010). Wind energy: Developing energy, wealth, and change. University
of Massachusetts.
Hufschmidt, M. M. (2011). Benefit-cost analysis: 1933-1985. Journal of Contemporary

Water Research, 42-49.
Hughes, J. E., Knittel, C. R., & Sperling, D. (2006). Evidence of a shift in the short-run
price elasticity of gasoline demand. National Bureau of Economic Research,
Working paper 12530.
Hurst, D., & Wheelock, C. (2011). Natural gas vehicles. Pike Research.
Innes, E. (2012). Calculation of Breakeven Points for EV Superiority over Gasoline

Vehicles. Retrieved from http://v2g-101.net/newsonv2g.html
Internal Revenue Service (2013). U.S. Code 30, 30C, and 30D.
Investor Words (2012). Cost/benefit analysis. Retrieved from

hiip://www.investorwords.com/1151/cost_benefit_analysis.html#ixzz23d8ogABn
215
Jaramillo, P. (2007). A life cycle comparison of coal and natural gas for electricity
generation and the production of transportation fuels (Doctoral dissertation).
Carnegie Mellon University.
Jerram, L., & Gartner, J. (2012). Total cost of ownership of alternative fuel vehicles for
fleet operators. Pike Research.
Ji, S., Cherry, C. R., Bechle, M. J., Wu, Y., & Marshall, J. D. (2011, December 22).
Electric vehicles in China: Emissions and health impacts. Environmental Science
and Technology. Retrieved from hiip://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202347q
Johnson, C. (2010). Business case for compressed natural gas in municipal fleets. National
Renewable Energy Lab, Technical Report NREL/TP-7A2-47919.
Joint Transport Research Centre (2008). Transport outlook 2008: Focusing on CO2
emissions from road vehicles. Transport Research Centre of the OECD and the
International Transport -Forum, Discussion Paper 2008-13.
Kar, S. (2011). Commercial vehicle outlook conference 2011. Frost & Sullivan.
Keane, A. G. (2012, January 20). Electric cars no more prone to fires than gas-powered
vehicles, U.S. says. Bloomburg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-
20/chevy-volt-battery-fire-investigation-closed-by-u-s-regulator.html
Kempton, W., & Tomic, J. (2004). Vehicle-to-grid power implementation: From

stabilizing the grid to supporting large-scale renewable energy. Journal of Power
Sources.
Kilcarr, S. (2004, August 31). Life cycle costs: Cheaper in the long run. American City
& County. Retrieved from
hiip://enews.penton.com/enews/americancitycounty/special_report/2004_august_
31_life_cycle/display
Kilcarr, S. (2010, July 12). Survey: Fleets not yet ready for plug-in electric vehicles.
Fleet Owner.
Knittel, C. R., & Sandler, R. (2010). Carbon prices and automobile greenhouse gas
emissions: The extensive and intensive margins. NBER conference on The
Design and Implementation of U.S. Climate Policy.
Laughlin, M. (2004). Analysis of U.S. school bus populations and alternative fuel
potentials. Clean Cities, DOE/GO-102004-1871.
Li, Z., & Ouyang, M. (2011). A win-win marginal rent analysis for operator and
consumer under battery leasing mode in China electric vehicle market. Energy
Policy, 39, 3222-3237.
216
Lovins, A. (2011a). What you need to know about blackouts. Time Ideas. Retrieved
from http://ideas.time.com/2011/11/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-blackouts/
Lovins, A. (2011b). Reinventing fire: Bold business solutions for the new energy era.
Rocky Mountain Institute, Kindle version.
Lovins, A., & Datta, E. K. (2006). Winning the oil endgame: Innovation for profit, jobs,
and security. Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute.
Lund, H., & Kempton, W. (2008). Integration of renewable energy into the transport and
electricity sectors through V2G. Energy Policy, 36, 3578-3587.
Lyden, S. (2012, April 10). Evaluating medium-duty truck alternative-fuel technologies.

Green Fleet Magazine. Retrieved from
hiip://www.greenfleetmagazine.com/print/51017
Makowever, J. (2009). Strategies for the green economy. New York: McGraw Hill.
Mathew, A. (2010). Identifying opportunities and obstacles for the use of solar energy in
commercial office buildings in the Northeastern region of United States (Master’s
thesis). Rochester Institute of Technology.
McMorrin, F., Anderson, R., Featherstone, I., & Watson, C. (2012). Plugged-in fleets: A
guide to deploying electric vehicles in fleets. The Climate Group, Cenex, and
Energy Saving Trust.
Merseyside Renewable Energy Institute (2012). Ethanol. Retrieved from

hiip://www.mrei.org.uk/ethanol.htm
Milbourn, C. (2009, December 7). Greenhouse gases threaten public health and the
environment. Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/agingepa/press/epanews/2009/2009_1207_1.htm
Morrow, K., Hochard, D., & Francfort, J. (2007). Cost benefit analysis modeling tool for
electric vs. ICE airport ground support equipment – development and results.
Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-07-12270.
Moseman, A. (2010). Methane gas explosion blamed for West Virginia coal mining
accident. Discover. Retrieved from
hiip://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2010/04/06/methane-gas-explosion-
blamed-for-west-virginia-coal-mining-accident/
Motavalli, J. (2011, May 6). Road taxes: Gas cars pay them, why not electric vehicles?
Mother Nature Network. Retrieved from hiip://www.mnn.com/green-
tech/transportation/blogs/road-taxes-gas-cars-pay-them-why-not-electric-vehicles
217
Mouawad, J. (2008, March 3). Oil prices pass record set in 1980s, but then recede. New
York Times, World Business. Retrieved from
hiip://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/worldbusiness/03cnd-
oil.html?hp&_r=0
Mraz, S. J. (2012, January 19). Overpressure valve protects lithium-ion battery packs.
Machine Design, 84(18). MSN (2012, July 15). Currency conversion calculator.
Retrieved from http://investing.money.msn.com/investments/currency-converter-
calculator
NADA (2013). NADA guides: Values. Retrieved from

hiip://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/2001/Ford/Econoline-E350-Van-V8/Super-
Duty-Cargo-Van/Values
NAFA (2012). Fleet acquisition and disposal guide. NAFA Fleet Management
Association.
National Private Truck Council (n.d.). American private fleets. Retrieved from
www nptc org
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2002). General evaluation plan. Fleet Test and
Evaluation Projects.
Neubauer, J. (2011). The impact of lithium availability on vehicle electrification.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/PR-5400-52393.
NHTSA (2010). NHTSA and EPA propose to extend the national program to improve
fuel economy and greenhouse gases for passenger cars and light trucks. Docket
ID No. NHTSA-2010-0131. Retrieved from hiip://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (2012). 2011 Vehicle technology market report. United
States Department of Energy.
Oodle Marketplace (2013). Cars for sale: Ford: F-650: 2001. Retrieved from
hiip://cars.oodle.com/2001-ford-f_650/for-sale/
Orcutt, M. (2012). How a smarter grid can prevent blackouts – and cut your energy bills.
Popular Mechanics. Retrieved from
hiip://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/efficiency/how-a-smarter-grid-
can-prevent-blackouts
Pesaran, A. (2011). A vision of our transportation future – the next 30 years. National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. Retrieved from
hiip://www.nrel.gov/vehiclesandfuels/energystorage/feature_vision.html?print
PHH Arval (2012).Telecommunications and utility fleet survey. PHH Arval.

218
Ramsey, M. (2011, December 8). Plugging in: As electric vehicles arrive, firms see
payback in trucks. The Wall Street Journal, B1.
Roush, B. (2012). Electrification of transportation. 2012 strategic directions in the U.S.

electric utility industry, a Black and Veatch report.
Salisbury, M. C., & Yuhnke, R.E. (2011). Nevada transportation blueprint: strategies for
meeting mobility needs, strengthening the local economy by reducing energy
costs, minimizing climate impacts, improving air quality and achieving energy
independence. Southwest Energy Efficiency Program.
San Francisco Chronicle (2013, February 8). Oil exports ease U.S. trade deficit.
Retrieved from hiip://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Oil-exports-ease-U-S-
trade-deficit-4264703.php#ixzz2KPwvSo2T
Savory, A. (1999). Holistic management: A new framework for decision making.

Washington, DC: Island Press.
Shelby, M., & Mui, S. (2007). Plug-in hybrids: A scenario analysis. 86th Annual
Meeting of TRB.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). Ecocentric management for a risk society. Academy of

Management Review, 20(2), 118-137.
Siegel, A. F. (2003). Practical business statistics (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Simeone, N. (2013, January 10). DOD electric vehicles will supply power to local grids.
American Forces Press Services. Retrieved from
hiip://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=118971
Simpson, A. (2006). Cost-benefit analysis of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle technology.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/CP-540-404085.
Sloan, M., & Meyer, R. (2010). 2010 Propane market outlook update. ICF
International, Inc.
Spitzley, D. V., Grande, D. E., Gruhl, T., Keoleian, G. A., & Bean, J. C. (2004).
Automotive life cycle economics and replacement intervals. Center for
Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Report No. CSS04-01.
Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a sustainability business model.

Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103-127.
Summit Up (2010, November/December). Electric vehicles seen as fleet component of

the future. Summit, 5.
Toby, P. (2011). EVs: Energy, infrastructure and mobility in the real world. Trend
Tracker Limited, Kindle edition.
219
Tomic, J. & Kempton, W. (2007). Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support.
Journal of Power Sources, 9098, 1-10.fc
United Nations (1992). Framework convention on climate change.

FCCC/INFORMAL/84 GE.05-62220 (E) 200705, Article 2. Retrieved from
http://unfccc.int
United Nations (2012). Our common future, chapter 2: Towards sustainable

development. Retrieved from http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm
United Nations Environment Programme & The Climate Change Secretariate (2002).
Climate change information kit.
United States Census Bureau (2010, September). FT900: U.S. International trade in
goods and services. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/foreign-
trade/statistics/graphs/PetroleumImports.html
United States Census Bureau (2012a). US and world population clocks. Retrieved from
hiip://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
United States Census Bureau (2012b). Current population reports ST-99-3 state
population estimates. Retrieved from hiip://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-
pop-chg.html
United States Department of Energy, & United States Environmental Protection Agency
(2012). Fuel economy guide: Model year 2012. Www.fueleconomy.gov.
United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
(2003). Freedom car.
(2008a).
(2008b). Number of gasoline stations continues to decline in 2007. Retrieved
from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw548.html
(2010a). Batteries. Vehicle Technology Program. Retrieved from
hiip://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/technologies/energy_storage/batter
ies.html
(2010b). Clean Cities’ guide to alternative fuel and advanced medium- and
heavy-duty vehicles. Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/47984.pdf
220
(2012a). Advanced vehicle testing activity, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Retrieved from
hiip://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/avta/heavy_duty/trucks/index.html
(2012b). Natural gas vehicle emissions. Retrieved from
hiip://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/natural_gas_emissions.html
(2012c). Plug-in electric vehicle handbook for fleet managers. Clean Cities,
DOE/GO-102012-3273.
(2012d). Electricity sources and emissions. Retrieved from
hiip://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/vehicles/electric_emissions.php
(2013). Alternative fuels data center: Federal laws and incentives. Retrieved
from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/laws/3270/US
United States Department of State, Office of Historian (2013). Milestones. Retrieved

from hiip://history.state.gov/milestones
United States Department of the Interior (1979). Permanent regulatory program

implementing Section 501(b) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
of 1977: Environmental impact statement. Retrieved from
hiip://www.fws.gov/policy/library/2012/2012-17950.html
United States Department of Transportation (2012a). Table 1-11: Number of U.S.

aircraft, vehicles, vessels, and other conveyances. Research and Innovative
Technology Administration. Retrieved from
hiip://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_
11.html
United States Department of Transportation (2012b). Table 1-14: U.S. Automobile and
truck fleets by use. Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Retrieved from
14.html
United States Department of Transportation (2012c). Table 4-10: Estimated consumption

of alternative and replacement fuels for highway vehicles. Research and
Innovative Technology Administration. Retrieved from
10.html
221
United States Department of Transportation (2012d). National transit database, annual

data tables 1996-2010. Federal Transit Administration, Table 19.
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (2013).

Planning glossary. Retrieved from
hiip://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/glossary/glossary_listing.cfm?sort=definition
&titlestart=g
United States Department of Transportation, United States Department of Energy, and

United States Environmental Protection Agency (2002). Report to Congress:
Effects of the Alternative Motor Fuels Act CAFÉ incentives policy.
United States Energy Information Administration (1999). Energy efficiency report:

Chapter 5: Transportation sector. Retrieved from
hiip://www.eia.gov/emeu/efficiency/ee_ch5.htm
United States Energy Information Administration (2009). Table 4-10: Estimated

consumption of alternative and replacement fuels for highway vehicles.
Alternatives to traditional transportation fuels report.
United States Energy Information Administration (2011). Annual energy review: 2010.
United States Energy Information Administration (2012a). Annual energy outlook: 2012.
United States Energy Information Administration (2012b). Monthly energy review: June
2012.
United States Energy Information Administration (2012c). What are renewable portfolio
standards (RPS) and how do they affect renewable electricity generation?
Retrieved from
hiip://www.eia.gov/energy_in_brief/renewable_portfolio_standards.cfm
United States Energy Information Administration (2012d). Gasoline and diesel fuel
update. Retrieved from
hiip://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/gaspump_hist.cfm;
hiip://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/dieselpump_hist.cfm
United States Energy Information Administration (2012e). Natural gas prices. Retrieved
from hiip://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm
United States Energy Information Administration (2012f). Table 10: Supply and
disposition of electricity, Colorado. Retrieved from
hiip://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/colorado/
United States Energy Information Administration (2012g). Electric power grid

definition. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/
222
United States Energy Information Administration (2012h). Monthly energy review:

December 2012.
United States Energy Information Administration (2013). Annual energy outlook: 2013.
United States Energy Information Administration (2013a). Cushing, OK WTI spot price
FOB. Retrieved from
hiip://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=D
United States Environmental Protection Agency & United States Department of

Transportation (2011, August). Final rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas
emissions standards and fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty
engines and vehicles: Regulatory impact analysis. EPA-420-R-11-901.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Framework for EPA’s air,
climate, and energy research program.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012a). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse

Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. EPA 430-R-12-001. Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads12/US-GHG-Inventory-
2012-Chapter-3-Energy.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012b). Geological sequestration.

Retrieved from
chiip://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_geosequest.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012c). The plain English guide to the
Clean Air Act: Cars, trucks, buses, and “nonroad” equipment. Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/airquality/peg_caa/carstrucks.html
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012d). Lithium-ion batteries and

nontechnology for electric vehicles: A life cycle assessment. EPA 744-R-12-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012e). Study of the potential impacts
of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources: Progress report December
2012. Retrieved from hiip://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/pdfs/hf-progress-report-exec-
summary20121214.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012f). eGRID2012 version 1.0

Report: Power control area file (year 2009 data). Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Clean energy: Nuclear energy.
Retrieved from hiip://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-
you/affect/nuclear.html
223
United States Geological Survey (2012). Earthquakes induced by fluid injection.

Retrieved from
http://www.usgs.gov/faq/index.php?sid=54684&lang=en&action=show&cat=125
United States Securities and Exchange Commission (2009). Commission guidance

regarding disclosure related to climate change. 17 CFR PARTS 211, 231 and 241
[Release Nos. 33-9106; 34-61469; FR-82]. Retrieved from
hiip://www.sec.gov/rules/interp/2010/33-9106.pdf)
United States Senate (2011). Bill S.1294: Oil independence for a stronger America act of
2011.
Valenta, M. T. (2005). CFO leadership strategies, Balancing short-term and long-term

solutions in the manufacturing industry. Boston: Aspatore Books.
Van Amburg, B., & Pitkanen, W. (2012). Best fleet uses, key challenges and the early
business case for e-trucks: findings and recommendations of the e-truck task
force. CALSTART.
Venkatarama, S., & Gartner, J. (2011). Electric vehicle batteries. Pike Research.
Wagner, D. (1999). Heavy-duty truck activity data. Office of Highway Information

Management, Office of Technology Applications, Federal Highway
Administration.
Waldron, C. D., Hamisch, J., Lucon, O., McKibbon, R. S., Saile, S. B., Wagner, F., &
Walsh, M. P. (2006). 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas
inventories, Volume 2: Energy, Chapter 3: Mobile combustion.
Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change.
Walter, L. (2012). MSHA campaign urges prevention for winter coal mining risks. EHS
Today. Retrieved from hiip://ehstoday.com/msha/msha-campaign-urges-
prevention-winter-coal-mining-risks
White House, the (2011, April 1). Fact sheet: National clean fleets partnership. Office of
the Press Secretary.
World Bank (2012).Commodity price data (pink sheet). Retrieved from

hiip://search.worldbank.org/data?qterm=oil%20price%20per%20barrell&languag
e=EN
World Nuclear Association (2012). Nuclear power in the USA. Retrieved from
hiip://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html
Yildiz, E. (2010). Nonlinear constrained component optimization of a plug-in hybrid

electric vehicle (Doctoral dissertation). Purdue University.
224
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Yuhnke, R. E., & Salisbury, M. (2011). Electric vehicles can buffer Arizona from the
economic shocks of rising fuel prices, create jobs and reduce pollution control
costs. Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
Yuhnke, R. E., & Salisbury, M. (n.d.). Ozone precursor and GHG emissions from light
duty vehicles comparing electricity and natural gas as transportation fuels.
Southwest Energy Efficiency Project.
Zeiger, S. (2013). What are the dangers of offshore drilling v. near shore drilling?
Retrieved from hiip://www.ehow.com/info_10001020_dangers-offshore-drilling-
vs-near-shore-drilling.html
225
APPENDICES
226
APPENDIX A
Summary of EV Trucks Available in the US
GVW/
Truck/ Top
Battery Charger Payload Range Speed
Make / Model Class Description (kWh) (kW) (pounds) (miles) (mph) Price (USD)
AMP 5 100
E-100
19,500
Balqon 6 On road cargo 220 50 n.a. 90 70 n.a.
Mule delivery n.a.
150 a 8,000
Balqon 7 Shipping cargo 215 40 90,000 95 25 $208,000 h

Nautilus E20 a port drayage 30,000
tractor 60,000
Balqon 8 Container 250 40 125,000 90 45 $208,000 h

Nautilus E30 a transport on or 65,000
off-road 60,000
Boulder EVs 3 Delivery van, n.a. 11 15,500 100 70 Around

Truck and WUV b 15 Passenger 11,500 $100,000 h
Shuttle, Service 4,000
body,
Flat bed
Electrorides 3 Utility, n.a. n.a. 100 60 $130,000 h

ZeroTruck c 4 dry freight, stake 12,000-
5 bed, tow, 19,500
sweeper, refuse; n.a.
Isuzu chassis
Enova Systems 4 Based on n.a. 10 n.a. 150 65 n.a.

ZE Stepvan d 5 Freightliner MT- n.a.
45 chassis n.a.
227
GVW/
Truck/ Top
Battery Charger Payload Range Speed
Make / Model Class Description (kWh) (kW) (pounds) (miles) (mph) Price (USD)
EVI 1 Small pick up 11 n.a. 1,800 50 35 n.a.

LD e
EVI 5 Delivery truck, 99 16 16,000- 90 60 $120,000-
MD e 6 Freightliner 23,000 $180,000 h
chassis n.a.
n.a.
EVI 5 Walk in van, 99 n.a. 16,000- 90 60 n.a.

WI e 6 built on 23,000
Freightliner n.a.
chassis n.a.
Navistar 2 AKA Modec 80 n.a. 17,222 100 50 n.a.

eStar 3 Box Van w/ 12,222
(JV-Navistar and chassis cab, 5,100
Modec) f drop-side truck
& box van
models
Smith EVs 4 Large delivery 40- 12- 16,500- 40- 50 $90,000-

Newton g 5 truck, Enova 120 18 26,000 150 $155,000
6 body 14,000-
26,400
6,100-
16,200
a
hiip://www.balqon.com/
b
hiip://boulderev.com/
c
hiip://zerotruck.com/
d
hiip://www.enovasystems.com/
e
hiip://www.evi-usa.com/
f
hiip://www.estar-ev.com/
g
hiip://www.smithelectric.com/
h
Plug-in America; hiip://www.pluginamerica.org/vehicle-
tracker?make=All&drivetrain=EV&class=commercial&charger=All&cvrp=All&availability=Availabl
e+in+US&items_per_page=20
n.a. Information was not available.
228
APPENDIX B
Carbon Emissions by Power Control Area
a
Percent of Energy Source
Other CO2e/
c
Power Control Area Coal Oil Gas Nuclear Hydro Wind RE b Other kWh
AEP - PSO/SWEPCO 54 0 42 0 1 1 2 0 1.6133
Alaska Misc 0 31 4 0 64 1 0 0 0.5230
Alcoa Power - Yadkin
Division 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
Alliant - East 83 2 7 0 2 5 1 0 2.0352
Alliant - West 52 0 4 28 0 15 0 0 1.3607
Ameren Services Company 79 0 1 18 2 0 0 0 1.7274
Anchorage Municipality of 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1.2840
Arizona Public Service
Company 77 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 1.8625
Arlington Valley 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.8597
Associated Electric
Cooperative Inc 83 0 14 0 1 2 0 0 1.9089
Avista Corporation 0 0 26 0 65 0 9 0 0.2198
Balancing Authority of
Northern California 0 0 80 0 19 0 1 0 0.7314
Big Rivers Electric
Corporation 79 18 0 0 0 0 2 0 2.4064
Bonneville Power
Administration 7 0 16 6 65 5 1 0 0.3090
California ISO 1 1 54 18 14 3 9 0 0.5387
CECD - Batesville 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1.0142
Chugach Electric Assn Inc 0 0 84 0 16 0 0 0 1.0218
Cleco Corporation 55 0 38 0 0 0 6 0 1.6674
Columbia MO City of 90 0 3 0 0 0 6 2 1.9747
Consumers Energy Company 56 1 21 19 0 0 4 1 1.4736
Dairyland Power Cooperative 74 0 0 0 1 24 1 0 1.7053
Detroit Edison Company 81 0 3 14 0 1 1 1 1.7291
Duke Energy Carolinas 36 0 2 59 2 0 0 0 0.7513
Duke Energy Corporation 94 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 1.9582
East Kentucky Power
Cooperative 96 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2.1157
El Paso Electric Company 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1.3064
Empire District Electric
Company 52 4 42 0 2 0 0 0 1.7838
Entergy 24 2 43 27 2 0 2 1 1.0085
ERCOT ISO 33 1 48 12 0 5 0 0 1.1861
Florida Municipal Power Pool 64 0 35 0 0 0 1 0 1.7544
Florida Power & Light
Company 1 5 67 24 0 0 2 1 0.8156
229
a
Other CO2e/
c
Gainesville Regional Utilities 75 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 2.0422
Gila River Power 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.9066
Golden Valley Elec Assn Inc 47 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8414
Grand River Dam Authority 88 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 2.1958
Great River Energy 86 0 1 0 0 9 4 0 2.0422
Griffith Energy 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.8640
Hawaii Electric Light Co Inc 0 69 0 0 5 12 14 0 1.3006
Hawaii Misc 3 70 0 0 3 6 6 12 1.3945
Hawaiian Electric Co Inc 18 78 0 0 0 0 2 2 1.6023
Hoosier Energy REC 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1041
Idaho Power Company 1 0 4 0 89 5 1 1 0.0478
Imperial Irrigation District 0 0 11 0 4 0 84 0 0.1854
Independence MO City of 94 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2.8728
Indianapolis Power & Light
Company 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.1449
JEA 62 18 16 0 0 0 4 0 1.9177
Kansas City Board of Public
Utilities 98 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2.5779
Kansas City Power & Light
Co-GMO 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.7878
Kansas City Power & Light
Company 93 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 2.2073
Lafayette Utilities System 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 1.3102
LG&E and KU Services
Company 98 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2.1039
Lincoln Electric System 40 2 56 0 0 2 0 0 1.1480
Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power 53 2 39 0 3 1 1 1 1.4732
Louisiana Energy & Power
Authority 0 1 99 0 0 0 0 0 1.6419
Louisiana Generating 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 2.3318
Madison Gas and Electric
Company 12 0 80 0 0 0 7 0 1.3746
Michigan Electric Coordinated
Systems 89 4 4 0 1 0 1 1 2.6041
MidAmerican Energy
Company 84 0 2 0 0 13 0 0 1.8205
Minnesota Power 86 0 1 0 6 1 7 0 2.1281
Muscatine Power and Water 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.4362
NaturEner Power Watch 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0.0000
Nebraska Public Power
District 65 0 1 30 2 2 0 0 1.5156
Nevada Power Company 12 0 87 0 0 0 1 0 1.0534
New Brunswick System
Operator 0 3 0 0 12 12 73 0 0.0577
New England ISO 12 1 42 30 7 0 5 2 0.7399
230
a
Other CO2e/
c
New Harquahala Generating
Company 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.8565
New Smyrna Beach Utilities
Commission of 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0.7029)
New York ISO 9 2 34 32 20 2 2 1 0.5915
North Little Rock AR City of 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
Northern Indiana Public
Service Company 70 2 11 0 0 7 0 10 1.9186
Northern States Power 50 0 6 31 2 9 2 0 1.2398
NorthWestern Corporation 75 2 0 0 20 2 0 0 1.8492
Ohio Valley Electric
Corporation 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9831
Oklahoma Gas and Electric
Company 56 0 41 0 0 2 0 0 1.6966
Omaha Public Power District 74 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 1.7937
Otter Tail Power Company 84 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 1.9844
PacifiCorp 75 0 13 0 6 4 1 1 1.7962
PJM Interconnection 53 1 9 34 1 1 1 0 1.2290
Portland General Electric
Company 31 0 44 0 23 0 1 0 1.0758
PowerSouth Energy
Cooperative 56 0 43 0 1 0 0 0 1.6891
Progress Energy Carolinas 46 0 5 45 1 0 3 0 1.0190
Progress Energy Florida 30 3 53 12 0 0 2 1 1.2625
Public Service Company of
Colorado 54 0 36 0 1 9 0 0 1.6534
Public Service Company of
New Mexico 66 0 28 0 0 4 0 0 1.7923
PUD No. 1 of Chelan County 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
PUD No. 1 of Douglas County 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
PUD No. 2 of Grant County 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
Puget Sound Energy 0 5 55 0 23 11 4 1 0.6243
Salt River Project 33 0 20 46 1 0 0 0 0.9473
Seattle City Light 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0020
Seminole Electric Cooperative 71 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 1.8287
Sierra Pacific Power Company 46 0 42 0 1 0 12 0 1.3859
South Carolina Electric & Gas
Company 46 0 25 25 0 0 3 0 1.1458
South Carolina Public Service
Authority 85 2 9 0 2 0 2 0 1.9857
South Mississippi Electric
Power Assn 69 0 11 0 0 0 19 0 1.8369
Southeastern Power
Administration 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0.0000
Southern Company Services 52 0 22 19 4 0 3 0 1.3191
231
a
Other CO2e/
c
Southern Illinois Power
Cooperative 99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.9072
Southern Indiana Gas &
Electric Company 99 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.7090
Southern Minnesota Municipal
Power Agcy 8 1 24 0 2 58 2 5 0.8362
Southwestern Power
Administration 41 0 1 0 58 0 0 0 0.9801
Southwestern Public Service
Company 54 0 35 0 0 10 0 1 1.5751
Springfield IL - CWLP City of 99 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2.5232
Sunflower Electric Power
Corporation 52 0 15 0 0 33 0 0 1.3627
Tacoma Power 0 0 0 0 91 0 9 0 0.0034
Tallahassee City of 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.9979
Tampa Electric Company 39 0 53 0 0 0 1 6 1.4691
Tennessee Valley Authority 44 0 11 32 12 0 1 0 1.0381
Tucson Electric Power 92 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 2.0089
Turlock Irrigation District 0 0 84 0 16 0 0 0 0.8234
Union Power Partners 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0.9446
Upper Peninsula Power
Company 47 2 4 0 6 0 38 2 1.2038
WAPA - Desert Southwest
Region 12 0 20 0 67 0 0 0 0.5109
WAPA - Rocky Mountain
Region 84 0 7 0 9 0 0 0 2.0444
WAPA - Upper Great Plains
East 68 0 0 0 28 3 0 0 1.6236
Westar Energy 61 0 6 30 0 3 0 0 1.5080
Western Farmers Electric
Cooperative 50 0 24 0 4 23 0 0 1.4116
Wisconsin Energy Corporation 52 0 14 28 3 1 2 0 1.3777

Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation 58 3 1 31 4 0 3 0 1.2199
Mean average 44 5 26 6 13 4 3 0 1.3555
Source: EPA (2012f).

a
May not add to 100% due to rounding.
b
Includes biomass, wind, solar, and geothermal.
c
Measured in pounds.
232
APPENDIX C
U.S. Environmental Regulations Affecting Fleet Trucks
Year Lead Policy Name Purpose Results

Agency
1970 EPA Clean Air Act Reduce mobile pollutants; Created EPA.
establish National Ambient Air 6 common air pollutants
Quality Standards (NAAQS) to decreased > 50%.
monitor emissions by state
1978 National Response to ’73 global oil crisis Public Utility Regulatory
Energy Act Policies Act;
Energy Tax Act;
Power Plant and Industrial
Fuel Use Act;
Natural Gas Policy Act;
National Energy
Conservation Policy Act
1988 Alternative Incentives for mfg – corporate Increased mileage rates
Motor Fuels average fuel economy (CAFE)
Act credits.
1990 EPA Clean Air Act Set emission goals for fleet $2 trillion in benefits;
vehicles Save 230,000 early deaths by
2020
1992 DOE Energy Policy Energy management programs
Act for water conservation, energy
efficiencies, utility incentives,
and federal fleet vehicles (By
’00 75% of fleets > 20 units
were to use alternative fuels)
2005 DOE Energy Policy Federal agencies to improve
Act energy efficiencies including
RE sources and alt fuel
2007 Executive EO 13423 For federal fleets: Increase
Order alternative fuel use 10%
annually; acquire PHEV when
viable
2007 Energy Reduce dependence on foreign
Independence oil; fed agencies must reduce
and Security petro use by > 20% and
Act increase alt fuel use by 10%
from ’05 to ’15. Each fleet
center to install renewal fuel
pump by ’10.
2009 EPA American Clean Requires research on the impact
Energy of energy development and
Leadership Act production on water resources
and the emissions attributed to
alternative transportation fuels.
233
Year Lead Policy Name Purpose Results

Agency
2009 Executive EO 13514-Fed Planning, GHG management,
Order Leadership in pollution prevention, waste
Environmental, reduction. Reduce petro use by
Energy, and 2% annual on fleets from ’05 to
Economic ’20.
Performance
2014 DOT CAFE Minimum MPG for Medium
Duty Truck groups
234
APPENDIX D
Top 300 Fleet Operators in the US
Trucks
Rank Company Cars Class Class Vans SUVs Cross Total
1-2 3-6 overs
1 United Parcel 0 4,615 66,165 1,853 0 0 72,633
Service (uPS)
2 AT&T 6,659 22,975 13,408 20,848 3,087 0 66,977
3 Verizon 5,920 20,224 23,035 15,509 0 0 64,688
4 Comcast Corp. 368 6,059 7,140 23,888 785 0 38,240
5 PepsiCo, Inc. 2,331 17,418 3,973 0 0 0 23,722
6 Coca-Cola 10,000 200 1,000 5,200 500 0 16,900
Refreshments
7 Servicemaster 400 13,300 0 0 0 0 13,700
8 Siemens 4,330 4,078 497 1,227 2,646 200 12,978
Corporate
9 State farm mutual 9,823 105 29 2,237 14 0 12,208
auto insurance
Co.
10 Cox enterprises 1,526 4,817 782 3,917 1,024 32 12,098
11 Pacific Gas & — — — — — — 11,768
electric
12 Quanta Services 100 1,800 8,300 297 290 0 10,787
13 Sears Holding 225 260 200 9,800 225 0 10,710
Corp.
14 Hewlett-Packard 4,100 11 2 400 500 4,500 9,513
Co.
15 United 1,511 2,142 625 3,905 1,113 192 9,488
Technologies
Corp. (UTC)
16 AutoZone 1,232 7,202 0 839 0 0 9,273
17 advance auto 1,664 5,840 10 46 1,536 0 9,096
Parts
18 Genuine Parts 3,110 5,789 150 0 0 0 9,049
Company
19 AmeriGas 67 795 7,973 36 9 0 8,880
Propane
20 Aramark Services, 1,320 2,887 2,220 1,031 1,065 287 8,810
inc.
21 Merck & Co., inc. 6,200 400 10 200 1,500 400 8,710
22 Johnson & 5,501 0 0 500 0 2,329 8,330
Johnson Services,
inc.
23 Asplundh tree 200 4,000 4,000 90 0 0 8,290
experts
24 American electric 377 3,993 2,419 989 290 0 8,068
Power
25 Church of Jesus 6,048 1,387 0 422 36 122 8,015
Christ of latter-
Day Saints
235
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
26 Dycom industries, — — — — — — 8,000
inc.
27 Rollins, inc. 770 6,890 65 2 85 6 7,818
28 Ecolab, inc. 674 2,398 27 2,614 1,788 286 7,787
29 Charter 37 5,521 1,638 0 441 0 7,637
Communications
30 Dr Pepper — — — — — — 7,500
Snapple Group
31 Rent-a-Center, 0 3,215 150 3,000 0 0 7,475
inc.
32 Crop Production 84 5,181 2,007 0 0 0 7,272
Services
(CPS)
33 farmers insurance 5,479 61 4 710 658 114 7,026
Group
34 Pfizer, inc. 6,000 0 0 25 800 150 6,975
35 abbott 1,553 72 0 2,356 2,819 0 6,800
36 union Pacific 173 3,591 1,715 176 1,070 0 6,725
Railroad
37 Johnson Controls, 62 1,508 100 4,285 47 652 6,654
inc.
38 Novartis 3,878 320 8 22 2,256 159 6,643
Pharmaceuticals
39 Southern — — — — — — 6,600
California edison
40 Compass Group 1,352 900 2,027 2,177 120 1 6,577
North america
41 vPSi, inc. 13 4 0 6,392 15 6 6,430
42 Weatherford 25 5,826 225 125 225 1 6,427
international
43 Directv Home 0 600 0 5,700 75 0 6,375
Services
44 emcor 150 2,500 200 3,450 50 0 6,350
45 GlaxoSmithKline 1,579 30 20 394 4,150 0 6,173
46 Service Corp. 3,216 1,582 32 1,098 217 11 6,156
international
47 GE Healthcare 1,978 0 0 3,031 0 1,036 6,045
48 Safelite autoglass 1,215 45 188 4,502 10 0 5,960
49 Burlington 145 3,209 824 302 1,378 0 5,858
Northern Santa
Fe
50 Sherwin-Williams 1,945 1,402 490 1,942 25 0 5,804
Co.
51 Schwan’s Home 0 0 5,700 0 0 0 5,700
Service, inc.
52 Ingersoll-Rand — — — — — — 5,631
53 united States 705 4,770 0 67 16 0 5,558
infrastructure
Corp. (uSiC)
54 AstraZeneca 5,500 0 0 0 0 0 5,500
Pharmaceuticals
55 Xerox Corp. 1,499 0 0 3,500 500 0 5,499
236
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
56 Chesapeake 322 4,338 562 0 266 0 5,488
energy
57 Conoco Phillips 858 3,650 530 80 290 0 5,408
58 Waste 0 3,475 1,680 57 97 0 5,309
management
59 eli lilly & Co 4,400 0 0 400 350 150 5,300
60 mary Kay, inc. 2,983 9 0 7 96 2,167 5,262
61 Kiewit 770 3,566 603 173 106 18 5,236
Corporation
62 lockheed martin 766 1,821 709 1,791 102 0 5,189
aeronautics
63 Commonwealth 1,500 1,500 1,500 600 0 0 5,100
edison
64 american 20 2,025 1,200 1,800 10 0 5,055
Residential
Services
65 Best Buy 1,794 3,125 134 0 0 0 5,053
66 e.i. DuPont De 468 3,146 264 556 569 0 5,003
Nemours & Co.
67 DiSH Network 50 750 0 4,200 0 0 5,000
68 labCorp 1,015 159 12 603 554 2,569 4,912
69 aBm industries, — — — — — — 4,883
inc.
70 Philips electronics 2,500 0 0 650 225 1,500 4,875
Na
71 Dominion — — — — — — 4,870
Resources
72 General Parts 2,030 2,618 4 21 181 0 4,854
international, inc.
73 NCR Corporation 0 0 0 3,600 1,100 0 4,700
74 Kraft foods 4,398 1 0 5 268 17 4,689
75 Heritage Propane — — — — — — 4,625
76 valleyCrest 234 2,834 1,283 66 151 0 4,568
Companies
77 Consolidated 676 2,275 664 746 200 0 4,561
edison Company
of New York
78 CSX 4 2,880 691 200 767 0 4,542
transportation
79 Republic Services 10 3,000 1,500 0 0 0 4,510
80 Windstream — — — — — — 4,500
Communications
81 Norfolk Southern 257 2,528 334 73 1,185 10 4,387
Railway Co.
82 NiSource, inc. 188 2,274 728 931 241 0 4,362
83 Baker Hughes inc. 235 3,553 443 25 26 0 4,282
84 Diebold, inc. 1,477 956 0 1,828 0 0 4,261
85 Nationwide 3,437 16 0 10 787 0 4,250
insurance
Company
86 Wal-mart 2,637 541 0 350 695 0 4,223
87 lKQ Corp. 250 100 3,800 50 10 0 4,210
88 first energy — — — — — — 4,100
237
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
89 Public Service 586 623 515 1,736 600 0 4,060
enterprise
Group (PSe&G)
90 Cablevision 195 413 424 2,748 257 0 4,037
91 american Water 0 2,700 800 450 80 0 4,030
92 Duke energy 178 2,314 1,295 0 240 0 4,027
Corp.
93 Sempra energy 335 2,800 570 210 15 0 4,020
utilities
94 Honeywell 2,560 405 24 860 28 126 4,003
international inc.
95 Cintas Corp. 0 3,000 1,000 0 0 0 4,000
95 entergy — — — — — — 4,000
95 lafarge N.a., inc. 300 600 3,100 0 0 0 4,000
95 lowes Companies — — — — — — 4,000
95 sanofi u.S. 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 4,000
100 Kellogg Company 2,000 0 0 100 1,800 0 3,900
101 National oilwell 152 3,266 266 9 205 0 3,898
varco
102 takeda 2,167 0 0 678 1,022 0 3,867
Pharmaceuticals
North america
103 the travelers 3,660 65 0 15 100 0 3,840
Companies, inc.
104 CenterPoint 133 2,694 120 526 229 0 3,702
energy
105 american Red 600 200 300 2,500 0 0 3,600
Cross
105 Colgate- 3,600 0 0 0 0 0 3,600
Palmolive
105 Comfort Systems 30 1,300 200 2,060 10 0 3,600
uSa, inc.
108 Boehringer- 2,037 111 6 42 1,376 0 3,572
ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals
inc.
109 Centurylink 308 1,984 759 501 0 0 3,552
110 Progressive 542 9 4 2,977 0 0 3,532
insurance Co.
111 Bayer inc. — — — — — — 3,500
112 united Rentals 23 2,013 1,270 91 92 0 3,489
113 ferguson 120 1,233 1,881 0 205 20 3,459
enterprises, inc.
114 illinois tool 646 651 219 1,523 245 169 3,453
Works, inc. (itW)
115 atmos energy 50 1,200 1,800 100 300 0 3,450
Corp.
116 monsanto Co. 46 2,774 142 151 156 140 3,409
117 mastec, inc. 100 3,300 0 0 0 0 3,400
118 Pepsi americas 2,175 125 1,021 0 0 0 3,321
119 Dte energy 300 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 0 3,300
120 forest 610 0 0 15 2,350 275 3,250
Pharmaceuticals
238
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
121 RSC equipment 0 2,067 1,038 40 48 0 3,193
Rental
122 thyssenkrupp 80 1,100 369 1,600 42 0 3,191
elevator
123 aPaC, inc. 350 1,500 900 100 300 0 3,150
124 Weyerhaeuser 900 1,620 50 228 310 0 3,108
125 Novo Nordisk, 310 0 0 620 1,950 225 3,105
inc.
126 Dow Chemical — — — — — — 3,038
uSa
127 aGl Resources, — — — — — — 3,023
inc.
128 National Grid 500 1,100 800 600 0 0 3,000
128 Schindler elevator 3,000 0 0 0 0 0 3,000
Corp.
130 mcDonald’s Corp. 932 0 0 20 2,008 0 2,960
131 marathon 713 1,715 122 240 160 0 2,950
Petroleum Co.
132 Xcel energy 215 791 1,601 223 70 25 2,925
133 Consolidated 800 1,800 250 50 0 0 2,900
Natural Gas
134 PPl electric 500 1,000 1,000 300 0 0 2,800
utilities
135 lehigh Hanson, 100 2,200 100 10 300 50 2,760
inc.
136 liberty mutual 1,943 11 0 597 204 0 2,755
insurance
136 Nestle 1,680 56 10 487 76 446 2,755
138 Bristol-myers 2,635 0 0 90 10 0 2,735
Squibb Co.
139 3m Company 1,600 100 0 350 50 600 2,700
139 altria Client 100 0 0 0 2,500 100 2,700
Services
139 BaSf Corp. 2,700 0 0 0 0 0 2,700
142 BmHC 10 1,800 700 100 50 0 2,660
143 Property & 800 1,200 400 200 0 0 2,600
Procurement
Support
143 tucson electric 650 650 650 650 0 0 2,600
Power Ct
143 tyson foods — — — — — — 2,600
146 uSiS 1,482 8 0 1 1,075 0 2,566
147 integrated 10 1,700 100 700 50 0 2,560
electrical Services
(ieS)
148 PPG industries 1,573 235 54 407 17 258 2,544
149 Consolidated 1,520 370 235 395 7 0 2,527
Coca-Cola
Bottling
150 Sunbelt Rentals 10 728 1,730 0 40 0 2,508
151 Nalco Chemical — — — — — — 2,500
Co.
152 agrium 150 1,500 787 15 0 0 2,452
239
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
153 RJ Reynolds 84 20 2 47 2,260 0 2,413
tobacco Co.
154 General electric 2,040 360 0 0 0 0 2,400
Power Sys.
154 inventiv 2,400 0 0 0 0 0 2,400
Commercial
Services
154 Scotts lawn 655 700 1,000 0 45 0 2,400
Service
157 aaron’s inc. 2 68 2,292 0 0 0 2,362
158 Walgreens Co. 1,597 231 90 392 34 0 2,344
159 occidental — — — — — — 2,328
Chemical Corp.
160 Pacificorp 116 1,150 800 115 130 0 2,311
161 Northern indiana 150 800 950 400 0 0 2,300
Public
Service
161 Securitas 1,800 150 0 50 300 0 2,300
Sercurity Services
uSa, inc.
163 HD Supply 84 1,063 1,052 42 22 7 2,270
164 Consumers 216 1,248 264 527 2 1 2,258
energy
165 thermo fisher 500 0 0 250 0 1,500 2,250
Scientific
166 velocity express 143 607 325 1,175 0 0 2,250
167 GeiCo 2,120 30 0 45 30 0 2,225
168 Kone, inc. 490 751 110 850 12 0 2,213
169 apria Healthcare, 3 800 1,200 200 0 0 2,203
inc.
170 Daiichi Sankyo 1,800 0 0 36 49 300 2,185
171 Stanley Works 345 427 28 1,001 362 0 2,163
172 J.R. Simplot Co. — — — — — — 2,143
173 ericsson inc. 30 1,570 0 240 260 0 2,100
174 ResCare, inc. 292 40 5 1,640 110 0 2,087
175 exterran energy 0 1,375 700 8 0 0 2,083
Solutions lP
176 oncor electric 74 829 897 170 78 0 2,048
Delivery
177 Walt Disney 180 553 242 901 169 0 2,045
World Co.
178 alyeska Pipeline — — — — — — 2,000
Service
178 flowers foods 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 2,000
178 Graybar electric 1,500 0 300 200 0 0 2,000
Co.
178 Navajo National 541 1,184 0 75 200 0 2,000
fleet management
178 Raycom media 1,500 250 0 250 0 0 2,000
inc. &
Community
Newspaper
Holdings
240
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
183 u.S. Steel Corp. — — — — — — 1,978
184 fedex express 150 600 600 300 250 50 1,950
184 tenneco Business 1,750 200 0 0 0 0 1,950
Services
186 automatic Data 1,581 10 0 84 226 0 1,901
Processing
(aDP)
187 Cargill, inc. 250 800 500 300 50 0 1,900
188 oSRam SYlvaNia — — — — — — 1,894
189 Granite 223 444 1,027 5 178 0 1,877
Construction Co.
190 Sprint 586 42 70 55 1,116 0 1,869
191 iron mountain 0 8 835 1,015 1 0 1,859
192 alliant energy 37 840 736 218 6 0 1,837
193 valero energy 238 1,384 79 73 54 0 1,828
Corp.
194 Dreyers/edys 0 0 1,800 0 0 0 1,800
Grand ice Cream
194 amgen 600 0 0 0 0 1,200 1,800
194 G & K Services 20 1,600 150 30 0 0 1,800
197 W.R. Grace & Co. 1,079 715 0 0 0 0 1,794
198 amtrak 80 1,132 194 192 165 13 1,776
199 florida Power & 120 996 236 285 134 2 1,773
light
200 Beckman Coulter, 400 50 0 1,300 0 0 1,750
inc.
201 Syngenta 5 1,415 44 62 210 13 1,749
202 Staples, inc. 0 5 1,700 30 1 0 1,736
203 Procter & Gamble 1,500 0 0 200 30 0 1,730
204 Williams 30 1,321 250 3 112 1 1,717
205 Pep Boys 360 1,303 12 15 22 0 1,712
206 NYSeG 225 816 255 410 0 0 1,706
207 CvS-Caremark 1,500 0 0 200 0 0 1,700
207 Shaklee Corp. 1,200 0 0 400 100 0 1,700
210 Star Gas Partners 14 138 416 1,109 3 0 1,680
211 Wilbur-ellis Co. 30 1,300 300 0 25 0 1,655
212 Gannett Supply — — — — — — 1,652
Corp.
213 Northeast utilities 22 729 207 323 369 0 1,650
214 Petroleum Heat & 6 343 67 1,190 42 0 1,648
Power
Co. (Petro)
215 San antonio Water 500 200 800 45 100 0 1,645
System
216 Safeway, inc. 709 833 1 3 59 0 1,605
217 Pioneer Natural 0 1,500 100 0 0 0 1,600
Resources
217 Supervalu 1,000 300 0 300 0 0 1,600
219 Home Depot 50 1,500 15 25 0 0 1,590
220 Praxair inc. — — — — — — 1,586
221 Nicor Gas 500 650 420 10 0 0 1,580
222 DS Waters of 44 111 1,169 249 0 0 1,573
america
241
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
223 anheuser-Busch 500 589 157 300 20 0 1,566
Companies, inc.
224 mYR Group, inc. 10 800 600 100 50 0 1,560
225 Robert Bosch 350 0 0 600 600 0 1,550
Corporation
226 Delta airlines 21 845 425 202 53 0 1,546
227 CSK automotive, 154 1,331 5 21 28 0 1,539
inc.
228 Schneider 1,200 125 10 100 100 0 1,535
electric/Square D
advanced
229 0 1,370 65 83 5 0 1,523
Communications
230 Consolidated 100 600 800 0 0 0 1,500
engineering
Services
230 Nielsen Company 1,500 0 0 0 0 0 1,500
230 Sunovion Pharma 400 0 0 0 1,000 100 1,500
233 Renzenberger, 0 0 0 1,355 144 0 1,499
inc.
234 General mills 453 0 0 28 722 291 1,494
235 Stroehmann 152 982 0 340 0 0 1,474
Bakeries
236 marriott 50 200 300 900 0 0 1,450
international
236 Roto Rooter 0 200 50 1,200 0 0 1,450
Corporation
236 Smurfit Stone 950 200 0 300 0 0 1,450
Container Group
236 Westinghouse 700 750 0 0 0 0 1,450
electric Corp.
240 Coinmach Corp. 70 775 233 307 10 44 1,439
& appliance
Warehouse
241 Southwest Gas 64 404 696 25 249 0 1,438
Corporation
242 media one 25 750 0 650 0 0 1,425
243 Pool energy 32 1,175 216 0 0 0 1,423
Services
244 Garda Cash 50 200 900 250 0 0 1,400
logistics
244 m.a. mortenson — — — — — — 1,400
Construction
246 ferrellgas 0 840 545 5 0 0 1,390
247 Safety-Kleen 50 0 820 514 1 0 1,385
Systems
248 encana oil & Gas 9 1,188 53 3 121 0 1,374
249 Gordon food 937 233 0 4 188 0 1,362
Service
250 Cook’s Pest 253 1,071 0 1 13 11 1,349
Control, inc.
251 texas industries 167 373 600 5 199 0 1,344
252 Salt River Project 179 651 248 147 110 0 1,335
242
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
253 american 1,320 0 0 0 10 0 1,330
international
Group
254 terracon 1 1,230 60 11 26 0 1,328
Consultants, inc.
255 G4S Secure 500 0 0 75 750 0 1,325
Solutions
256 Red Bull North 214 170 545 42 336 5 1,312
america
257 archer Daniels 700 520 55 25 0 0 1,300
midland
257 Citgo Petroleum 1,040 226 0 14 20 0 1,300
Corp.
257 union Carbide 600 500 0 100 100 0 1,300
Corp.
260 oce North america 950 0 0 189 0 149 1,288
261 allergan 1,210 0 0 0 9 54 1,273
261 american family 450 40 5 465 81 232 1,273
mutual insurance,
inc.
263 Culligan 100 374 464 317 2 5 1,262
international
264 allegheny Power 1 1,030 110 100 10 0 1,251
Company
265 aqua america 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 1,250
265 Rexnord Corp. 1,000 0 50 200 0 0 1,250
267 mfa, inc. 220 580 425 11 0 0 1,236
268 SteRiS 129 12 2 1,053 29 0 1,225
Corporation
269 estee lauder, inc. 900 0 0 0 20 300 1,220
270 the Walsh Group 63 1,023 99 7 19 0 1,211
271 Diamond auto 100 10 100 1,000 0 0 1,210
Glass
272 agilent 180 0 0 7 33 980 1,200
technologies
272 Caterpillar 900 50 0 100 150 0 1,200
272 fujifilm Holdings 1,200 0 0 0 0 0 1,200
america
Corp.
272 Konecranes, inc. 210 750 0 60 130 50 1,200
272 mettler toledo — — — — — — 1,200
277 Newell 207 82 6 228 622 45 1,190
Rubbermaid, inc.
278 Covidien 362 73 0 682 46 0 1,163
279 united airlines 40 500 0 600 20 0 1,160
280 Kroger Company 250 200 400 300 0 0 1,150
281 Kimberly-Clark 1,050 10 0 75 0 0 1,135
Corp.
282 Questar Gas 31 846 114 6 132 0 1,129
Company
283 ameren 10 136 928 34 15 0 1,123
284 veolia Water 69 628 276 87 51 0 1,111
logistics
243
Trucks
1-2 3-6 overs
285 Pepco Holdings 270 870 0 0 0 0 1,110
286 Dresser industries 450 650 0 0 0 0 1,100
286 Beverly 440 440 0 110 110 0 1,100
enterprises
286 Black Box 10 790 0 300 0 0 1,100
Corporation
286 Parker-Hannifin 800 0 0 100 200 0 1,100
Corp.
290 GteCH 33 9 35 968 53 0 1,098
Corporation
291 ashland, inc. 1,000 50 0 20 20 0 1,090
292 Genentech/Roche 300 0 0 197 0 577 1,074
293 Rohm & Haas 500 500 0 30 30 0 1,060
Corp.
294 Crawford & Co. 850 200 0 0 0 0 1,050
294 Shell oil Co. 150 900 0 0 0 0 1,050
295 RGiS inventory 234 0 0 800 10 0 1,044
Specialists
297 uSG Corp. 97 439 0 16 490 0 1,042
298 mcGraw-Hill 600 0 0 402 12 0 1,014
Companies, the
299 Suburban Propane 13 250 400 350 0 0 1,013
300 teva 300 5 0 100 300 300 1,005
Pharmaceuticals
260,190 354,329 236,648 217,907 72,983 25,579 1,270,125
Total vehicle count is higher than combined vehicle totals due to unprovided fleet
breakdowns. Adopted from Automotive Fleet (2012).
244
APPENDIX E
Fleet Data Request
ID #
GVWR Class
Description
Vehicle type
Garage
Model
Year Acquired
Useful life
Capacity
Average
Weight load
Minimum
Maximum
Type
Fuel Unit
Cost per unit
Average
Miles per fuel unit Minimum
Maximum
Average
Miles per day Minimum
Maximum
Average
Miles per hour
Maximum
Average
Stops per day Minimum
Maximum
Start time
Daily operation hours
Stop time
Days per week
Weeks per year
Cost
Scheduled maintenance
Hours
Cost
Unscheduled Maintenance
Hours
Residual Value
245
APPENDIX F
Participant Interview Questions
Introduction
The purpose of this research study is to model where and when EVs are viable for
truck fleet operations. By completing and submitting this survey, you are giving your
consent for the principal investigator to include your responses in her data analysis. Your
participation in this research study is strictly voluntary, and you may choose not to
participate without fear of penalty or any negative consequences. Individual responses
will be treated confidentially. No individually identifiable information will be disclosed
or published, and all results will be presented as aggregate, summary data. If you wish,
you may request a copy of the results of this research study by writing to the principal
investigator at Mary Valenta, mvalenta@bellsouth.net.
Overview
In today’s environment, decision-making for a truck acquisition encompasses
choosing from various fuel types, including traditional gas or diesel, compressed natural
gas (CNG), and electric vehicles (EVs), among others. Please consider these questions
based on your organization’s formal or informal policies, and your knowledge and
experience related to alternative fuels and vehicle acquisitions, operations, and disposals.
1. What are your personal and your organization’s experience with alternative
fuels?
2. What corporate level position in your organization (e.g., Vice President)
authorizes the vehicle types for acquisition (e.g., petroleum, CNG, electric,
other)?
246
3. What are your organization’s current plans for alternative fuels within your
fleet?
4. What are your organization’s current plans for funding vehicle acquisitions
(i.e., lease v. buy)?
5. If your organization is using, or considering using CNG or EVs, do you have
or will you add on-site fueling? Do you have estimated costs for such
infrastructure?
6. If your organization is using, or considering using EVs, will you consider
providing vehicle-to-grid ancillary services? If so, directly or through a third
party? How manage within the organization’s structure?
7. What value do you believe your organization receives by branding the use of
alternative fuels? How does your organization measure this value?

247
Section A: Environmental Impacts of Alternative Vehicles
The U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
identified greenhouse gases (GHG), primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), as pollutants that
endanger the environment and public health and welfare by negatively impacting air
quality, climate, and energy (Milbourn, 2009; EPA, 2011). According to the EPA
(2012a), petroleum transportation fuels emit one-third of the GHG in the US. Processing
petroleum through internal combustion engines produces 75% of carbon monoxide
emissions and approximately 50% of the volatile organic compounds in the US that form
smog and toxic emissions. CNG emits 15-30% less GHG and 95% less overall toxins
than gas or diesel, yet emits greater amounts of methane (EERE, 2010b; Lyden, 2012;
Salisbury & Yuhneke, 2011).
8. How strongly do you believe organizations should be held financially
accountable for any negative environmental effects from using petroleum or
natural gas fueled vehicles, provided such effects are measurable and
reasonable?
Not at all Somewhat Highly
9. Alternatively, how strongly do you believe taxpayers should share in any
future costs to reduce negative environmental effects from organizations using
petroleum or natural gas fueled vehicles?
Not at all Somewhat Highly

248
10. How does climate (e.g., hot, cold, dry, wet, etc.) and topography (e.g.,
mountainous, sandy, etc.) negatively affect your operations of vehicles fueled
by:
Low Medium High None N/A

Petroleum
CNG
Electric
11. To the best of your knowledge, what “probability” AND “severity” levels
attribute to the occurrence of these environmental risks related to vehicle
fuels. What additional risks do you believe exist and how would you rate
them?
Risks Low Medium High Low Medium High
Climate change from __ __ __ __ __ __
greenhouse gases
Other air pollutants __ __ __ __ __ __
Raw material sourcing
Oil __ __ __ __ __ __
Coal __ __ __ __ __ __
Lithium __ __ __ __ __ __
Disposal of oil __ __ __ __ __ __
Disposal of lithium __ __ __ __ __ __
Oil spills and leaks __ __ __ __ __ __
Rainwater runoff __ __ __ __ __ __
Nuclear leaks __ __ __ __ __ __
Other:
__ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __
12. Overall, what are your feelings regarding the importance of environmental
issues from petroleum, CNG, and electric vehicles?

249
Section B: Economic Impact of Alternative Vehicles
13. Please check the probability and severity levels you attribute to the occurrence
of these economic risks related to vehicle fuel. Add any additional risks that
you believe exist.
Capacity of electric grid to __ __ __ __ __ __
support growth of EVs
Highway fuel tax added to __ __ __ __ __ __
electric prices for EVs
Electricity price increase __ __ __ __ __ __
Ability for EVs to handle __ __ __ __ __ __
range and weight loads
Oil price increase __ __ __ __ __ __
Political issues with OPEC __ __ __ __ __ __
CNG prices increase __ __ __ __ __ __
Interest rate increase __ __ __ __ __ __
Other:
__ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __
14. How much more per vehicle and / or per mile are you willing to pay for CNG
and electric vehicles over petroleum (check one box for each fuel)?
Over $0.75 $0.50 $0.25 Other None

$0.75
CNG
Electricity
15. What discount rate, or range of rates, if any, does your organization use for
valuing vehicle acquisitions? %
16. Overall, what are your feelings regarding the importance of economic issues
from petroleum, CNG, and electric vehicles?

250
Section C: Social Impact of Alternative Vehicles
Social impacts from vehicle use include the safety, health and welfare for
employees and the general public. Manufacturers and employers have responsibilities for
employee safety and training. The EPA states that GHGs are the primary cause of
climate change, “which can lead to hotter, longer heat waves that threaten the health of
the sick, poor or elderly; increases in ground-level ozone pollution linked to asthma and
other respiratory illnesses; as well as other threats to the health and welfare of
Americans” (Milbourne, 2009).
17. Please check the probability and severity levels you attribute to the occurrence
of these social risks. Add any additional risks that you believe exist.
Safety of EVs __ __ __ __ __ __
Safety of petroleum __ __ __ __ __ __
Safety of CNG __ __ __ __ __ __
Developing countries’ __ __ __ __ __ __
demand greater
share of oil supply
Other:
__ __ __ __ __ __
__ __ __ __ __ __
18. Overall, what are your feelings regarding the importance of the social issues
from petroleum, CNG, and electric vehicles?
Thank you for your participation in this study!

251
References
Lyden (2010, April 10). Evaluating medium-duty truck alternative-fuel technologies.
Green Fleet Magazine. Retrieved from
hiip://www.greenfleetmagazine.com/print/51017
Milbourn, C. (2009, December 7). Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the
Environment. Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/agingepa/press/epanews/2009/2009_1207_1.htm
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (2010b). Clean Cities’ guide to
alternative fuel and advanced medium- and heavy-duty vehicles.
Salisbury, M. C. & Yuhnke, R.E. (2011). Nevada transportation blueprint: strategies for
meeting mobility needs, strengthening the local economy by reducing energy
costs, minimizing climate impacts, improving air quality and achieving energy
independence. Southwest Energy Efficiency Program.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Framework for EPA’s air,
climate, and energy research program.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (2012a). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2010. EPA 430-R-12-001. Retrieved from
hiip://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads12/US-GHG-Inventory-
2012-Chapter-3-Energy.pdf
252
APPENDIX G
Regional Transmission Organizations Map
Source: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2013)

253
APPENDIX H
Average Property Tax Rates by State
Alabama 0.33% Nebraska 1.76%

Alaska 1.04% Nevada 0.84%
Arizona 0.72% New Hampshire 1.86%
Arkansas 0.52% New Jersey 1.89%
California 0.74% New Mexico 0.55%
Colorado 0.60% New York 1.23%
Connecticut 1.63% North Carolina 0.78%
Delaware 0.43% North Dakota 1.42%
Florida 0.97% Ohio 1.36%
Georgia 0.83% Oklahoma 0.74%
Hawaii 0.26% Oregon 0.87%
Idaho 0.69% Pennsylvania 1.35%
Illinois 1.73% Rhode Island 1.35%
Indiana 0.85% South Carolina 0.50%
Iowa 1.29% South Dakota 1.28%
Kansas 1.29% Tennessee 0.68%
Kentucky 0.72% Texas 1.81%
Louisiana 0.18% Utah 0.60%
Maine 1.09% Vermont 1.59%
Maryland 0.87% Virginia 0.74%
Massachusetts 1.04% Washington 0.92%
Michigan 1.62% West Virginia 0.49%
Minnesota 1.05% Wisconsin 1.76%
Mississippi 0.52% Wyoming 0.58%
Missouri 0.91% District of Columbia 0.46%
Montana 0.83% Average 0.98%
Source: hiip://www.tax-rates.org/taxtables/property-tax-by-state
254
APPENDIX I
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 3 Trucks
Table I.1
Base Case
EV
Petroleum CNG Buy Lease Unit
Data input is italicized; formulas are not.
Fleet duty cycle:
A4 Class 3 3 3 3 Rate
A5 Miles / day 38 38 38 38 Miles
A6 Buffer miles/day 20 20 20 20 Miles
A7 Operating days/week 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 Days
A8 Operating weeks/year 52 52 52 52 Weeks
A9 Miles / year 11,856 11,856 11,856 11,856 Miles
A10 Cargo weight 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Pounds
A11 Gas (G) or diesel (D) D Fuel
A12 Vocational energy need 0 0 kWh
A13 % road grade > 5% 50% 50% Percent
A14 % max speed > 35 mph 50% 50% Percent
A15 % needing heat 100% 100% Percent
A16 On-site fueling (Y/N) Y Y Y Y
Asset data / unit:
T1 Number of vehicles 10 10 10 10 Quantity
T2 Vehicles / location 10 10 10 10 Quantity
T3 Vehicle life expectancy 12 12 12 12 Years
T4 Truck weight 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 Pounds
T5 Vehicle cost $50,000 $50,000 $51,515 $51,515 Dollars
T6 Conversion cost $14,000 Dollars
B1 Battery weight / kWh 33 33 Pounds
B2 kWh / mile-ton rating 0.0769 0 kWh
B3 Max state of charge 95% 95% Rate
B4 Depth of discharge 80% 80% Rate
B5 Energy > 5% grade 5% 5% Percent
B6 Energy > 35 mph 5% 5% Percent
B7 Energy for heat 15% 15% Percent
B8 Additional energy for mileage 20.0% Percent
255
EV
B9 Equivalent range miles (min) 66 Miles
B10 Energy available (min) 33 kWh
B11 Energy required (min) 43 100 kWh
B12 Range miles (actual) 75 Miles
B13 Battery energy (actual) 50 100 kWh
B14 Continuous C rate 1 2 Factor
B15 Battery power 50 200 kW
B16 Miles / kWh 1.89 1.89 Miles
B17 Battery cost / kWh $500 Dollars
B18 Battery cost $25,000 Dollars
B19 Management software $20,000 Dollars
B20 Cycles 2,000 2,000 Rate
B21 Required charges per week 5.3 6.0 Charges
B22 Potential life 7.3 6.4 Years
B23 Chosen life 5.0 5.0 Years
B24 Future cost / kWh $250 Dollars
B25 Replacement labor $8,500 Dollars
B26 Battery replacement costs $21,000 Dollars
E1 DGE per month 611 Gallons
E2 DGE : GGE conversion 90.4% Factor
E3 Fueling equipment 1 5 10 Quantity
E4 Number of locations 1 1 1 Quantity
E5 Charger power 12 58 kW
E6 Efficiency rating 89.5% 95.0% Rate
E7 Equipment cost / kWh $250 Dollars
E8 Fueling equipment cost $75,000 $3,000 Dollars
E9 Circuit voltage 240 480 Volts
E10 Circuit current 50 120 Amps
E11 Circuit power 12 58 kW
E12 Installation costs $75,000 $3,000 Dollars
E13 Infrastructure costs $10,000 $20,000 Dollars
E14 Circuitry efficiency 93.0% Rate
E15 Charge time available 6.0 Hours
E16 Charge time 2.90 0.35 Hours
I1 Incentives-trucks ($7,500) Dollars
I2 Incentives-fuel equip ($30,000) ($12,000) Dollars
Finance data:
R1 Inflation rate 3.6% 6.2% 2.2% 0.0% Percent
R2 Discount / interest rate 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% Percent
256
EV
R3 Tax rate (fed + state) 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0% Percent
R4 Lease life 12 Years
Fuel data: Gallon DGE kWh Mile Unit
F1 Cost / unit $3.13 $1.70 $0.090 Dollars
F2 Tax credit for 2013 ($0.50) Dollars
F3 Miles / unit for fueling 20.00 18.08 1.55 Rate
F4 Cost / mile $0.1564 $0.0942 $0.0580 $0.1564 Dollars
F5 Lease increase 10.0% Percent
Other operating expenses:
O1 Average maintenance cost $1,038 $1,038 $476 $476 Dollars
O2 Maint hours / year 7.1 7.1 2.6 2.6 Hours
O3 Rental replacement / hour $100 $100 $100 $100 Dollars
O4 Property tax mil rate $0.980 $0.980 $0.980 $0.980 Rate
Residual value:
V1 Truck 10% 10% 10% 10% Percent
V2 Market expected payback 3 3 Years
V4 Charging equipment 20% 20% Percent
257
Table I.2
Best-Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A11 Gas (G) or diesel (D) d Fuel
A16 On-site fueling (Y/N) n n y y
Asset data / unit:
258
EV
E13 Infrastructure costs $0 $0 Dollars
Finance data:
259
EV
Residual value:
260
Table I.3
Worst-Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A11 Gas (G) or diesel (D) g Fuel
Asset data / unit:
Vehicle life
T3 expectancy 12 12 12 12 Years
261
EV
I1 Incentives-trucks $0 Dollars
I2 Incentives-fuel equip ($30,000) $0 Dollars
Finance data:
262
EV
Residual value:
263
Table I.4
Realistic Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A16 On-site fueling (Y/N) y y y y
Asset data / unit:
Vehicle life
T3 expectancy 12 12 12 12 Years
264
EV
Finance data:
265
EV
Residual value:
266
APPENDIX J
Lifecycle Cost Analysis Assumptions for Class 6 Trucks
Table J.1
Base Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A11 Gas (G) or diesel (D) D Fuel
Asset data / unit:
267
EV
E1 DGE per month 2,035 Gallons
Charge time
E15 available 6.0 Hours
Finance data:
R1 Inflation rate 3.6% 6.2% 2.2% Percent
268
EV
Residual value:
269
Table J.2
Best-Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A16 On-site fueling (Y/N) n n y y
Asset data / unit:
270
EV
E13 Infrastructure costs $0 $0 Dollars
Finance data:
271
EV
Residual value:
272
Table J.3
Worst-Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A11 Gas (G) or diesel (D) G Fuel
Asset data / unit:
273
EV
I1 Incentives-trucks $0 Dollars
I2 Incentives-fuel equip ($30,000) $0 Dollars
Finance data:
274
EV
O1 Average maintenance cost $2,077 $2,077 $1,902 $1,902 Dollars
Residual value:
275
Table J.4
Realistic Case
EV
Fleet duty cycle:
A16 On-site fueling (Y/N) y y y y
Asset data / unit:
276
EV
Finance data:
277
EV
Residual value:
278
APPENDIX K
Summary of Level 2 Charging Stations
Maximum Price
Make / Model Amps Short Description (USD) Accessory Images
UL listed. Residential unit.

Aerovironment 30 Aerovironment is Nissan's EVSE $999
EVSE-RS service partner for the LEAF rollout.
UL listed. The CS line is

ClipperCreek's line of general
purpose EVSE. Clipper Creek was
ClipperCreek 75
the first company to get UL-listing
CS Series
for a charger with an SAE J1772
connector.
UL, ETL listed. Designed for
residential use. This station features
ClipperCreek some of the same features found in
25 $795
LCS Series other ClipperCreek units, like the
Service Ground Monitor, Automatic
re-closure, and contactor monitoring.
Control
EVSE, LLC. is a subsidiary of
Module
Control Module Industries. They are
Industries 74
planning designs for parking lot,
EVSE LLC
curbside, and industrial uses.
EVSE
UL listed. Residential. Level 2

Coulomb
30 charging station designed and
Technologies
manufactured by Coulomb.
CT500
UL listed. Coulomb is one of the

Coulomb pioneers in the networked EVSE
30
Technologies space. This is their Level 2-only
CT2000 charging station.
Coulomb UL Listed. This is a Level 1 and 2

30
Technologies combination charging station.
CT2100
Custom built stations. Customers

16 can choose 1 or 2 plugs, and Level 1
DBT Wallbox
or Level 2 power.
279
Maximum Price
Networked, dual-plug station with a

DBT GNS variety of access control systems
Series Level 2 30 (RFID, NFC) and payment system
Charging options. Supports Open Charge
Station Point Protocol (OCPP).
This station can be configured with

one or two plugs, and has a variety
DBT BBR
of available access control systems
Series 16
and payment options. It can be set up
Charging
standalone or configured with a
Station
central management system.
Basic Level 2 station designed for

Delta AC residential or commercial use. Two
32
Charging models available, "Economic" or the
Station networked "Smart".
ETL listed. Eaton's Pow-R-Station

line seems compelling for fleet use,
Eaton Pow-R- as it can talk to a facility's Energy
70
Station Level 2 Management System. It is also
EVSE unique in that it can locally store
usage information on an flash card.
UL listed. Selective height design

for convenient compliance with
Ecotality Blink 30 $1,195
ADA requirements. 360 degree
EVSE
beacon light.
EV-Charge
32 Easy to install unit. $649
America
EV2100
Combination Level 1 and Level 2

stations. Please note that customers
EV-Charge
have reported problems buying
America
charging stations from EV-Charge
EV2200 Series
America.
280
Maximum Price
Designed by Evatran to be
upgradeable to Plugless Power
Evatran Level 32
hands-free proximity charging
2 EVSE
capability as soon as it's available.
Ford is working with Best Buy to

offer a charging station for owners
Ford Focus of the Ford Focus Electric EV. Best
Electric 32 Buy will sell the station and offer
Charging consultation and installation services
Station through its Geek Squad tech support
services unit.
General Designed by industrial designer

30 $1,000
Electric Yves Behar. Now available.
WattStation
UL listed. Company has over 100

General years experience in the design and
30 $4,500
Electric manufacture of electrical distribution
DuraStation systems.
ETL listed. GM has announced a

partnership with Michigan-based
SPX Service Solutions to sell and
install this 240V home charging
GM Voltec 15 $490
station made for the Chevrolet Volt.
EVSE
This station can recharge the Volt
battery from depleted to full in about
four hours.
This charging station allows the

owner to set fee collection. The
Go Smart 50 station provides the consumer with $2,200
ChargeSpot PS options depending on the length of
time they will be charging.
GoSmart Technologies offers two

GoSmart 50 Level 2 units, one offering 30A $900
ChargeSpot RF charging, the other 50A.
281
Maximum Price
Designed by BMW Group

Green Garage
DesignworksUSA. This is a free- $5,000
Associates
charging only station.
Juice Bar
ETL listed. Commercial unit can

handle simultaneous Level 1
GRIDbot UP- 30 charging via a NEMA 5-20
100J receptacle or Level 2 charging using
the J-plug.
Level 2 station from a major

Legrand Level 16 manufacturer of consumer electrical $749
2 goods. Features auto reset.
Leviton Evr- 16 UL listed. Residential. $1,050

Green 160
The core of many of Leviton's and

other reseller's Level 2 models, this
Leviton Evr- 32 charging station features a "do-it- $1,395
Green 320 yourself" wall mounting and plug
system.
UL listed. Networked charging

Leviton Evr-
30 stations. Designed for fleet and light
Green Level 2
commercial applications.
Fleet
Leviton Evr- UL listed. Designed for public-use

30
Green CT applications.
Level 2
282
Maximum Price
Charging station designed by

Leviton EV Leviton exclusively for the 2012
Charging 40 Toyota RAV4EV. (although it
Station for should work fine with other vehicles
Toyota with J1772 inlets)
Designed for commercial

applications. Provides all the
Milbank EV
capabilities of a 30 amp Level 2
Pedestal 30
station (same as the Aerovironment
Charging
EVSE-RS) while providing a secure,
Station
lockable cabinet.
ETL listed. Allows four vehicles to

OpConnect
30 charge at same time. Combination
EVCS (with
Level 1 and 2 unit.
J1772)
This futuristic-looking unit is LED-

lit all around, for ease of finding the
receptacles at night, or to highlight
30
ParkPod ads or company logos. The unit
features a Windows XP/7
client/server database solution.
Plug-In ETL listed. Dual Level 2 units that

30
Electric Power can charge two EVs simultaneously.
(PEP) Level 2
Schneider UL listed. Schneider's indoor model

30 $799
Electric Square designed for residential use.
D Indoor
UL listed. Schneider outdoor model

can be used in both residential or
commercial applications. Optional
Schneider advanced metering functionality to
Electric 30 collect and monitor energy and $2,772
EVlink demand profile data is also available.
Outdoor Advanced versions feature
additional networking and
communication features.
283
Maximum Price
Station designed for commercial-
grade applications, such as
multifamily, office, retail, fleet and
SemaConnect 30 municipal parking environments.
ChargePro 620 Compact and sleek design for easy
integration into existing parking
facilities.
Highly configurable
commercial/public multi-head unit.
Shorepower 30 $3,900
Payment system does not require use
ePump
of proprietary network.
UL listed. Siemens units are
available as single Level 2 and
multi-level designs. The multi-level
Siemens Smart 30
units allow both Level 1 and 2
Grid EVSE
outputs to deliver energy
simultaneously.
Available in 30A and 70A models.
Units are adjustable via an amperage
Siemens 70 dial or via communication with $1,000
VersiCharge utility. Four supply wiring
configurations are possible.
This unit is available in either a plug

SPX Power 32 in model (240VAC input) or a $949
Xpress permanent hardwired model.
Designed for media-driven

installations that allow free charging
Volta Charging 30
to the public. Company is planning
EVSE
to launch network in 2012.
Source: Plug In America http://www.pluginamerica.org/accessory-

tracker?page=4&type=All&level=2&nrtl=All

A Business Case of Electric Vehicles For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

A Business Case of Electric Vehicles For

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Business Case of Electric Vehicles For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES FOR TRUCK FLEETS

A Doctoral Dissertation Research

Doctor of Business Administration

BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHCILES FOR TRUCK FLEETS

All rights reserved

BUSINESS CASE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES FOR TRUCK FLEETS

Abstract of Doctoral Dissertation Research

Doctor of Business Administration

Dr. Michelle Post, Ph.D. Education

Dr. Ammon Balaster, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering

Department: College of Business

provided vehicle-to-grid revenue opportunities are available to the lessor. As technology

participant fleet operators for providing insight and data.

care and understanding, emotional support, and assistance.

faith you will continue to do likewise.

TABLE OF TABLES …………………………………................................... xii

TABLE OF FIGURES …………………………………................................. xiv

TABLE OF APPENDICES ………………………………….......................... xvi

TABLE OF ACCRONYMS …………………………………......................... xvii

CHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM …………………………………............. 1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………... 20

Fuel costs …………………………………………………….. 70

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ……………………………………. 90

petroleum ICEVs, and CNG ICEVs …………………………. 103

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ………………….. 114

Economic risks ….……………………………………………. 133

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………. 210

2. Example of Trucks in Each Truck Class …………………………........ 26

3. Top 10 Commercial Truck Fleets, 2011 ………………………………. 27

5. EV Comparison by Powertrain Type …………………………………. 39

6. Forecast and Actual EV Units and Related Data ……………………... 40

7. U.S. Sources for Electricity Generation, 2012 and 2003 ……………... 53

8. Numerical Estimates of Global Warming Potentials …………………. 61

9. Carbon Dioxide Emission Factors and Uncertainty Ranges by Fuel

10. Data Related to Research Question 1 …………………………………. 101

11. Data Related to Research Question 2 …………………………………. 102

12. Data Related to Research Question 3 …………………………………. 103

13. GVWR for Truck Classes ……………………………………………... 116

17. Participants’ Trucks Potentially Eligible for Replacement by EV

Trucks …………………………………………………………………. 123

18. Summary of Participant Fleet Truck Data …………………………….. 126

19. Environmental Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type …………………… 129

21. Economic Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type ………………………... 133

32. Social Risk Factors Applied to Fuel Type …………………………….. 175

33. Summary of LCA Cases for Class 3 Truck …………………………… 178

34. Summary of LCA Cases for Class 6 Truck …………………………… 179

38. Summary of Ratings …………………………………………………... 189

1. Petroleum Use by Market Sector …………………………..................... 2

2. Natural Gas Use by Market Sector ………………………..................... 8

3. CO2 Emissions by Energy Source …………………………………...… 9

4. United Sates Petroleum Production and Transportation Consumption,

5. Average Hourly Weekday Electricity Usage ………………………….. 55

6. Projected Uncontrolled Vehicle-Charging Load ………………………. 57

7. Projected Price Controlled Vehicle-Charging Load ………………….... 57

8. Illustration V2G Technology …………………………………………... 58

9. Global Warming Lifecycle Emissions by Energy Source ……………... 63

15. Electricity Forecasted Cost per kWh, 2013 to 2024 …………………… 74