Policy Instruments in the Transition to Electric Vehicle Transport in Virginia

As prepared for Virginia Clean Cities

Pat Cary
cpatcary@gmail.com
May 2017

Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia

Claude Monet- The Water: The Clouds

Honor Pledge: On my honor as a student, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this assignment.

Disclaimer: The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Frank Batten
School of Leadership and Public Policy, University of Virginia. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the
course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the
author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Batten School, by the University of Virginia, by Virginia Clean
Cities, or by any other agency.

1
 Acknowledgements
Thank you to Professor Randall Lutter for your consistent support throughout the semester in
class, in office hours, and elsewhere. Thank you to Professor Dan Player for assistance with
statistical methods. Thank you to Alleyn Harned and Matthew Wade of Virginia Clean Cities for
your help and guidance on broad transportation issues and with data. Thank you to Lauren Lynch
of NREL for assistance with Virginia vehicle data. And lastly, thank you to my family and
friends who provide me with support and inspiration to create this product.

2
Table of Contents

Terminology and Acronyms p. 4

Executive Summary 8
Introduction 8
Client 9
Background 10
Literature Review 16
Evaluative Criteria & Analysis 19
Data 22
Approach & Methods 24
Results 25
Limitations 26
Recommendation 26
Discussion 27
Appendix 29
Works Cited 35

3
I: Terminology and Acronyms

NREL- National Renewable Energy Laboratory

NREL is operated by government-contractors, and is the nation’s primary source for information
related to renewable energy. It is headquartered in Colorado (“About NREL”, 2017).
AFLEET- Alternative Fuel Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Transportation Tool
The Argonne National Laboratory’s System Assessment Group developed AFLEET specifically
for the Clean Cities organization, which is the umbrella organization for my client. According to
Argonne, the model is designed to, “estimate petroleum use, greenhouse gas emissions, air
pollutant emissions and cost of ownership of light-duty and heavy duty vehicles using simple
spreadsheet inputs” according to the type of fuel used and local energy supply mix (“GREET
model”, 2017). More broadly, AFLEET is considered one of the leading tools to conduct a “Life
Cycle Cost Analysis”.
LCCA- Life Cycle Cost Analysis
LCCA is defined as, “…a process to analyze the economic value of a project through evaluation
of its fixed and variable costs over the life cycle of the project” (Gardner, 2015). The model is
based in reputable data sources indicating typical vehicle use (vehicle miles travelled), lifetime
costs, and emissions generated from use, given vehicle type and fuel used.
AFDC- Alternative Fuel Data Center
The AFDC is a unit of the US Department of Energy. It is an authoritative source on information
about transportation technologies, and is used to inform policymakers’ decisions and the public
about ways to reduce petroleum use (“About the”, 2016).
ACS- American Community Survey
The ACS is a survey conducted by the US Census Bureau. It collects data monthly, and is used
to inform policymakers’ decisions related to income, employment, and education, among other
issues.
Alternative fuel
As defined by the US Department of Energy, alternative fuels include the following: “methanol,
ethanol, and other alcohols; blends of 85% or more of alcohol with gasoline (E85); natural gas
and liquid fuels… propane; hydrogen; electricity; biodiesel (B100); coal-derived liquid fuels;
fuels… derived from biological materials; and P-Series fuels…” (“Alternative Fuels”, 2017).

4
EVSE- Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
EVSE refers to the equipment used to recharge an electric vehicle. As described in my below
analysis, EVSE mainly comes in three types: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 or DC “Direct
Current”. Higher levels are associated with decreasing charge time and increasing cost.
Electric vehicle charging station
In my analysis, an electric vehicle charging station refers to a location where electric vehicles
owners may use supply equipment to charge. The station may include different levels of
technology, and one or multiple ports.
Port
A port refers to the piece of technology on an electric vehicle charging station that connects to an
electric vehicle to charge it. Although an electric vehicle charging station may have multiple
ports, only one is used to charge a single electric vehicle.
EV- Electric Vehicle
Regarding the definition of what qualifies as an EV, the DMV defers to the Alternative Fuel
Data Center’s definition: “EVs use a battery to store electric energy that powers the motor. EV
batteries are charged by plugging the vehicle into an electric power source” (“Hybrid”, 2017).
Range
The distance a vehicle can drive at its full fuel or charge capacity.
Range anxiety
Range anxiety is the, “fear of becoming stranded too far from a charge” in an EV (Dooley,
2011). It is a major impediment to the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
VKT or VMT- Vehicle Kilometers Travelled of Vehicle Miles Travelled
VKT or VMT are estimates a given vehicle travels in a certain time period. For the purposes of
my analysis, the AFLEET model assumes average VMT per year is 12,400.
ICE- Internal combustion engine
The ICE was first created in 1859. Today, it is the most common power supply for consumer
vehicles. They are most often fueled by gasoline.
CO2e- Carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
Carbon dioxide equivalent is a measure used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse
gases based upon their global warming potential” (“Glossary of”, 2013).
GHG- Greenhouse gases

5
GHG are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere. They include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, and fluorinated gases.
NAAQS- National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS are a group of standards that were established by the EPA as a part of the Clean Air
Act. The standards relate to regulation of common pollutants in outdoor air that harm human
health and the environment. NAAQS are divided into two different types of standards: primary
and secondary (“Reviewing”, 2017). NAAQS exist for six “criteria” air pollutants: carbon
monoxide, lead, particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. My analysis
ultimately focuses on nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter.
NOx- Nitrogen oxides
NOx is, “a family of poisonous, highly reactive gases. These gases form when fuel is burned at
high temperatures…it is a strong oxidizing agent and plays a major role in…[creating] ozone”
(“Nitrogen”, 2017).
PM- Particulate matter
PM, “is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets that get into the air.
Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects”
(“Particulate”, 2017).
DOE- US Department of Energy
The DOE is a department of the federal government, and is headquartered in Washington, DC. It
seeks to promote America’s security as it relates to environmental and nuclear challenges with
science and technology tools (“About us: mission”, 2017).
DOJ- Department of Justice
The DOJ is in the US federal executive department, and is headquartered in Washington DC. Its
mission statement is, “to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according
to law; to ensure public safety...to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime;
to seek just punishment...and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all
Americans” (“About DOJ”, 2017).
EPA- Environmental Protection Agency
The EPA is a federal government agency, with the purpose of protecting the environment and
human health by enforcing various federal statuses.
EIA- Energy Information Administration

6
The EIA is a part of the US Department of Energy. Its responsibilities include collecting and
analyzing energy data and information, and conveying it to policymakers and the public.
NERC- The North American Electric Reliability Corporation
NERC is a nonprofit corporation that oversees eight regional entities, which consists of all the
interconnected power systems in the United States, Canada, and Baja California of Mexico.
These regional entities have unique compositions that define the sources from which they derive
electricity (“Reliability”, 2016).
VW- Volkswagen
Founded in 1937 in Germany, VW is widely regarded as the largest automaker in the world.

7
II: Executive Summary
The present analysis analyzes unique insight into the relationship between investment in
public electric vehicle supply infrastructure and the take-up of electric vehicles in Virginia. It
details the public policy implications of the recent Department of Justice settlement decree with
Volkswagen in relation to transportation and environmental benefit to the state. In the analysis, I
consider and evaluate the defining technological characteristics of electric vehicle supply
infrastructure, and how the public engages with them. I use a fixed-effects regression model to
estimate the effects of recharging stations on registration of electric vehicles, taking into account
local county and independent city characteristics to understand which policy is the most cost-
effective to accomplish the goals as outlined in the settlement decree. Ultimately I recommend
that the state uses trust funds in $10,000 increments of Level 1 public electric vehicle supply
infrastructure. I estimate my recommendation reduces air pollutant emissions by up to 56%
relative to a baseline of conventional travel.

III: Introduction
Today 13% of Americans’ vehicle travel cannot be completed on a single charge of an
EV (Chang et al., 2015). Although 13% may appear insignificant, it is sufficient to motivate
concern about range. Loss-aversion systematically biases human behavior to view the effects of
potential losses as disproportionately larger than those of gains. Range anxiety is the wide-spread
adopt of EV’s most formidable barrier. It obscures EV adoption because its disadvantages are
highly visible and impactful. I hypothesize that if Virginia policymakers increase the number of
publically-available, visible EVSE stations, the number of EVs driven around the state will
significantly increase. In my analysis, I ultimately evaluate the cost-effectiveness of investment
options permissible under the DOJ’s settlement decree with Volkswagen in terms of air pollution
abated relative to a baseline of conventional transportation, and the number of EVs on Virginia
roads. The options for the state are available from an $87.5 million “Environmental Mitigation
Trust Fund,” created as a result of the Volkswagen settlement decree (Cruden, Engel, & Van
Eaton, 2016). It is uncertain how Virginia should best spend its VW environmental mitigation
fund on EV public charging infrastructure, given variation in infrastructure technology, and
local county and independent city characteristics.

8
IV: Client
My client for the present research is VCC based in Harrisonburg, Virginia. VCC
advocates for alternative and renewable forms of fuel use in transportation in the state, including
the use of electric vehicles, and other kinds that reduce the nation’s dependence on oil. Its
umbrella organization, Clean Cities (CC), is a government-industry partnership that consists of
nearly 100 regional coalitions. It was created by the DOE after the enactment of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 (“Alternative Fuels”, 2017). The “EPAct” of 1992 was introduced in the
House of Representatives as H.R. 776 by Congressman Philip R. Sharp, a democrat of Indiana,
on February 4, 1991. The legislation seeks to, “…reduce US dependence on petroleum and
improve air quality by addressing all aspects of energy supply and demand, including alternative
fuels, renewable energy, and energy efficiency” (“Alternative Fuels”, 2017). Consequently, the
DOE created the CC initiative to respond to the mandates created by the EPAct of 1992 to
execute voluntary alternative vehicle deployment initiatives.
Today, CC’s regional coalitions, including VCC, work with 15,000 stakeholders. The
organization's efforts to reduce dependence on petroleum, and increase use of alternative
transportation fuels include: partnership building with local stakeholders; the development of
independent analysis of alternative fuel use; the creation of data-driven tools online; technical
assistance for alternatively-fueled fleets, and others. CC’s activities and programs with its
stakeholders have saved more than 8.5 billion gallons of petroleum since its creation in 1993. It
also has facilitated the deployment of, “hundreds of thousands of alternative fuel vehicles and the
fueling stations that serve a growing market. The program has also aided in the elimination of
millions of hours of vehicle idling and helped accelerate the entry of new transportation
technologies into the marketplace” (“Clean Cities: Goals”).
Specifically, VCC’s stakeholders include a host of private businesses. Others include
James Madison University, the City of Richmond, and the City of Chesapeake, Virginia. Some
of VCC’s publications include topics of alternative fuel tax information, the viability of EV
charging stations at Virginia universities, and the organization’s annual operations reports. My
direct contact is VCC’s Executive Director, Mr. Alleyn Harned. His projects specific to VCC
include topics of air quality, securing the nation’s energy security, and leveraging alternative fuel
policy to create economic growth in the state. Before working for VCC, Alleyn served as

9
Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Trade for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
V: Background
In September of 2015, the EPA issued a notice of violation of the Clean Air Act to VW
upon finding that the company had intentionally programmed about 11 million of its diesel-
fueled vehicles sold worldwide to deceive laboratory emissions testing, especially related to NOx
emissions levels (Canis et. al., 2016). The DOJ alleged that nearly 600,000 diesel VW and Audi
vehicles sold in the U.S. had illegal “defeat devices” installed. The defeat device is a piece of
technology installed in vehicles that could recognize then the car was being emissions tested in a
laboratory, and when it was being driven on a road by consumers. In the lab, the defeat device
would then turn down or disable the equipment that reduces NOx emissions, known as the
“Nitrogen oxide trap”. In order to run the trap properly, the vehicle’s engine must regularly use
more fuel. The NOx trap was most likely programmed to be disabled in order to save fuel, or
increase the car’s torque and acceleration, according to analysts who have studied the case
(Canis et. al., 2016). Increased fuel economy and car performance make for decidedly more
attractive vehicles. The Congressional Research Service reports that the vehicles with the
deceiving software could emit 40 times the legal limit of NOx (Canis et. al., 2016). Figure 1 in
the Appendix shows the basic components of the emissions-reduction equipment at hand.
In late June 2016, the EPA and the DOJ announced the Volkswagen settlement decree,
which, “[includes] a $10 billion buyback back of affected cars from consumers, and $4.7 billion
to mitigate pollution and support zero emission vehicle technology” (Canis et. al., 2016). Of the
$4.7 billion, $2.7 billion is directly allocated to individual states, Washington DC, and US
territories, with Virginia receiving about $87.5 million over the next decade. The DOJ settlement
decree reads that the $87.5 million is an “Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund”. The key section
of the settlement decree as it relates to my present analysis is part 9 of Appendix D titled “Light
Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Supply Equipment”. In that section, the settlement decree declares:

“Each beneficiary may use up to fifteen percent (15%) of its allocation of Trust Funds on
the costs necessary for, and directly connected to, the acquisition, installation, operation
and maintenance of new light duty zero emission vehicle supply equipment… Light duty
electric vehicle supply equipment includes Level 1, Level 2 or fast charging equipment
(Level 3)... that is located in a public place, workplace, or multi-unit dwelling… [and]

10
 Light duty hydrogen fuel cell supply equipment” (Cruden, Engel, & Van Eaton, 2016).

Table 1, below, shows the key differences in EVSE technology by “levels”.

The settlement decree also allows beneficiaries the option to spend funds on the costs
necessary for scrapping medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks and buses, and replacing them
with alternatively-fueled or all-electric powered vehicles, or just new engines for the old
vehicles. The fuels or engine power explicitly mentioned in the settlement decree include:
compressed natural gas, propane, hybrid, or all-electric. It also includes funding for the fueling or
charging stations necessary for where the truck or bus is housed. It includes all labor, installation,
and acquisition costs (Cruden, Engel, & Van Eaton, 2016). Figure 4 in the Appendix shows the
classification differences between medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses.
Given that Volkswagen set aside more than $20 billion to address the costs of the
scandal, the company reported significant losses in net income in 2015. Since news of the
scandal, its chief executive Martin Winterkorn resigned. Mr. Winterkorn was given a memo on
emissions irregularities in 2014, however the company continued to install the defeat devices in
its cars. He failed to promptly disclose that the company was under formal investigation
regarding the emissions scandal. Media outlets suggest the scandal has reached well within the
top ranks of the company (Ewing et al., 2017). Consequently, six company employees are facing
criminal charges, including Oliver Schmidt, Volkswagen’s former top emissions compliance
manager in the United States, who was arrested in January, 2017 (Ewing et al., 2017). The
company’s stock price plummeted immediately following the scandal, but has since rebounded.
Table 1

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

Mile vehicle range/minute charging time 0.10 0.33 2.5

Installation & acquisition cost/station $2400 $15000 $34000

Operation cost/station/year $436 $2058 $3384

Maintenance cost/station/year $50 $50 $50

11
 Source: Smith, 2015.
Scope of Study
Within the scope of the investment options for alternatively-fueled transportation
permitted by the settlement decree, I limit my analysis further. Although it allows for investment
in medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses, I am not confident in the feasibility and reliability
of the analysis of those options for Virginia. Investment in alternatively-fueled heavy and
medium-duty trucks and buses is contingent on a wide range of unknown and uncertain
variables. A sound statistical analysis of the effect of investment in this field is problematic,
given uncertainty and limited research resources.
As described above, the settlement decree covers costs for the replacement of diesel
medium and heavy-duty trucks and buses with alternatively-fueled vehicles and their
corresponding fueling stations. In this aspect of the settlement decree, the medium and heavy-
duty trucks and buses may be fueled by propane or compressed natural gas. Historically, the
price of propane is very volatile. Experts believe predictions of future prices of propane are very
difficult to make, and subject to significant error (Sloan, 2016). Likewise, the price of natural gas
is volatile (“An analysis”, 2007). Comparatively, the price of electricity is less volatile in
Virginia. In Virginia, electricity generation comes from a wide range of energy sources, as seen
in Table 2 in the Appendix. Since electricity has several sources, the volatility in electricity price
is less. The relationship is similar to the differences between investing in a single company on
the stock market, as compared to a mutual fund. A mutual fund allows the investor to spread risk
across a variety of industries.
There is no existing, authoritative dataset on public charging infrastructure for
alternatively-fueled heavy and medium-duty trucks and buses. I cannot conduct a robust analysis
of the widespread use and prevalence of alternatively-fueled heavy and medium-duty trucks and
buses without realistically knowing refueling and recharging availability throughout the state.
Lastly, I argue investment in public light-duty EVSE is a far more politically popular option. As
the settlement decree states, the new alternatively-fueled heavy and medium-duty trucks and
buses, and their according charging and refueling stations need not be located in public places.
Virginians, like all humans, are susceptible to the “availability heuristic”. The availability
heuristic refers to a common procedure, “…for estimating the likelihood of an event, or the
frequency of co-occurrences, by ease with which the relevant mental operations of retrieval,

12
construction, or association can be performed” (Kahneman & Tversky, 1974). The visibility of
benefits of investment in public EVSE in Virginia is much greater than that of investment in
comparatively fewer, and more expensive fueling and charging stations for heavy and medium-
duty trucks and buses. Virginians are more interested in what affects light-duty, alternatively-
fueled vehicles, which they know comparatively more about in large part due to heavy media
marketing campaigns. In recalling what is “environmentally-beneficial,” Virginians more easily
recall and associate with highly-visible public, light-duty EVSE.
Motivation
As discussed above, Volkswagen’s use of on approximately 600,000 of diesel vehicles it
sold in the U.S. permitted NOx emissions at levels up to 40 times the standard permitted by the
EPA (Canis et. al., 2016). It is common knowledge that NOx acts as an indirect greenhouse gas:
“[ozone] forms in the atmosphere as the result of a chemical reaction between nitrogen oxides…
in the presence of sunlight” (Copeland, 2011). Scholars find that NOx emissions contribute to a
wide range of negative externalities, not exclusively related to direct effects on human health:

“NOx contributes to a wide range of environmental effects including the formation of acid
rain…PM2.5 (via formation of secondary particulates such as ammonium nitrate) with
resulting health impacts and contributions to regional haze, eutrophication of aquatic
ecosystems (via addition of excess nitrogen), and elevated O3 concentrations (via reaction
with hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide) with resulting impacts on health and
agriculture” (Bradford, 2005).

Researchers estimate that, “…excess emissions of NOx from 2009 to 2015 Volkswagen diesel
vehicles…” led to “… damages of $430 million and 46 excess...deaths” (Holland, 2016).
The severe effects of criteria air pollutants on human health are well-documented.
Exposure to ground-level ozone can increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, the
aggravation of respiratory illness, and is associated with premature mortality, among other
issues. Exposure to particulate matter is associated with premature mortality, aggravates
respiratory and cardiovascular disease, and decreases lung function growth. Sulfur oxides also
lead to respiratory issues. NOx affects the respiratory system, and can severely aggravate asthma
(“Criteria Air”, 2017).

13
 The nation’s reliance on fossil fuels in transportation contributes to severe issues of
growing GHG concentrations, and the deterioration of local air quality, especially in urban areas
(Ramadhas, 2011). Alternative fuels can, “…reduce the energy dependence…reduce vehicle
exhaust emissions… [and] have the potential to operate at a lower cost compared to petroleum
products” (Ramadhas, 2011). Of course, these are contingent on the unique characteristics of
alternative fuels, including where they are produced and used.
The potential benefits of alternative fuel must be studied within Virginia’s context to
address some of its pressing issues. As Figure 2 in the Appendix shows, Virginia remains
significantly far behind the nation’s leaders in abating per capita criteria pollutants. Figure 3
shows that the Washington, DC area of the state has levels of ozone air quality that can be,
“unhealthy for sensitive groups”. The air quality index, “…is a measurement designed to indicate
how lean the air is in in an area, and it provides information about health effects associated with
air pollution” (“Virginia Ambient”, 2015). Additionally, GHG warming effects are especially
dangerous to the state: “Sea level is rising more rapidly along Virginia’s shores than in most
coastal areas… Increased rainfall could further exacerbate flooding…Higher temperatures are
likely to reduce livestock productivity...” (“What Climate”, 2016).
Transportation & The Electric Vehicle
Due to major technological breakthroughs and environmental and political pressures to
shift away from reliance on oil, the future of road transportation is due for rapid change.
Autonomous and electric vehicle technologies are two aspects that experts expect to define the
future of transportation. However, the details and predictions of the transportation transformation
are far from certain far from certain.
Experts predict that full-scale autonomous vehicle adoption in the US will occur just 10
years in the future, and some believe it could even be shorter than that. Given the scope of my
present analysis, I will not discuss the uncertainties related to the wide-scale adoption of the
autonomous vehicle. There are several benefits that provide good reason to believe autonomous
vehicle adoption will be soon, and rapid. The first is safety. Given the fact that 90% of crashes in
the US occur due to human error, widespread adoption of autonomous vehicles has the potential
to significantly reduce road fatalities (Smith, 2013). In fact, by mid-March of 2013, Google had
already logged more than 500,000 VMT on its autonomous, self-driving vehicles without
experiencing a single accident. Increased mobility of an otherwise sedentary population of

14
disabled, or people under the age to get a driver’s license is another key benefit. Autonomous
vehicle technology adoption also has some key environmental benefits. First, with less crashes,
there is less waste in the materials required to manufacture a car. Second, it makes land use more
efficient. Given autonomous vehicles could drop a passenger off at a destination, it could then go
park itself in a remote location. Lastly, autonomous vehicles may become much lighter than cars
on the road today, due to the expected much lower rate of car crashes. This aspect is especially
relevant to my present analysis. Lighter vehicles significantly boost fuel efficiency, making the
potential benefits of an autonomous vehicle with a battery-powered electric vehicle even greater
(“Autonomous”, 2014).
Rapid decreases in the cost of batteries, alongside the simultaneous growth in their
capacity lead experts to believe that by 2040 EVs will cost less than $22,000 and that 35% of all
new vehicle sales will be EVs (Randall, 2016). In fact, the capacity of EV batteries has tripled,
while their cost has gone down about 70% in the past 7 years (“Global”, 2016) Today, 94% of
transportation vehicles depend on oil, a commodity which the US is dependent on trade with
other countries, leading to tense foreign relations (Dooley, 2011). Reducing our reliance on oil
has national security implications, as a result. Although electricity generation in Virginia is
somewhat reliant on oil, the potential growth and use of other sources represents significant
potential. Second, there is a significant economic opportunity that EVs present to the US. The
DOE estimates that the US produces about 40% of the world’s EV batteries, a market that could
grow to $100 billion annually by 2030 (Dooley, 2011). The EVSE needed to charge the growing
number of EVs represents a significant economic opportunity as well. Some expect that the
supply and installation of residential charging stations in the US will reach $1 billion by 2020
(Dooley, 2011). Lastly, there is a potential major environmental benefit in widespread EV
adoption. The environmental benefit of EVs relative to a baseline of conventional travel is
contingent on the fuel source of electricity generation, as I will discuss later in my analysis.
However, even EVs that use electricity from older coal power plants emit about 25% fewer
GHGs as compared to conventional travel (Dooley, 2011). Increased fuel efficiency leads to
significant economic benefit for consumers. Researchers estimate that fuel costs of EVs are
typically 2 to 3 cents per mile, leading an EV owner to save up to $10,000 in fuel costs over its
lifetime, as compared with a conventional vehicle (Dooley, 2011).
However, there are significant barriers to the widespread adoption of EVs. Their drive

15
range is typically only around 100 miles, and the time it takes to recharge them fully is relatively
long, which is discussed in more detail below (Pedersen et al., 2012). For comparison, today’s
ICE vehicle is significantly less expensive, can typically have a range of around 400 miles, and
refuels quickly (Pedersen et al., 2012). Researchers on transportation safety fear there are still
some key challenges regarding EVs. Specifically, lithium-ion batteries have the potential to
short-circuit or overheat. Additionally, EVs produce little to no engine noise, which could be
dangerous to pedestrians (Pedersen et al., 2012). On top of fears of range anxiety, consumers are
likely to significantly discount the value of future savings in fuel costs that EVs provide, if they
fully understand fuel economy benefits at all (Pedersen et al., 2012). More research shows that
some consumers feel there is a significant social stigma involved in owning an EV, noting that
they are perceived as “cheap” or “ugly” (Pedersen et al., 2012). Lastly, there are institutional
barriers that impede full EV market penetration. Car manufacturers, oil companies, and repair
businesses have all invested billions of dollars to service, provide, and maintain widespread
conventional ICE vehicle use, all of which have significant political influence in advancing their
own interests (Pedersen et al., 2012).

VI: Literature Review

US Transportation
Transportation scholars find that reduction of harmful emissions from the transportation
sector is, “…one of the most difficult subsectors” in which to do so (Borken et. al., 2015).
However, there is significant research on the topic, including empirical analyses of public policy
efforts to mitigate the transportation sector’s impact on the environment given unique contexts.
Researchers find that the total amount of GHG emissions from the transportation sector depend
on four major factors: “travel demand, what modes of transportation are used to travel and how
far, the fuel economy of those vehicles, and the carbon-intensity of fuels” (Kay et. al., 2014).
Given the goal of reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector, previous literature
suggests that “federal and state authorities in the US have limited influence on travel demand”
(Kay et. al., 2014).
Independent researchers estimate that VKT from light duty vehicles will grow on average
at an annual rate of 1.2% (Energy, 2013). Some, however, find that there is reason to believe that
VKT future estimates are declining, rather than increasing. They attribute a decline to increasing

16
costs of driving, increased reliance on communication-technology for personal contact, cultural
shifts, and a movement away from reliance on automobiles in city centers (Puentes 2012, Sivak
& Schoettle, 2011; Schoettle & Sivak, 2014).
Comparing Light Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Technology
One of the investment policies considered by settlement beneficiaries is to invest in,
“Zero Emission Vehicle,” or ZEV technology for light-duty vehicles. The title “ZEV” implies
nothing, however, about the source of energy from which it derives power. Regional differences
in electricity generation aside, researchers find that barriers to entry of widespread ZEV
technology use include a widespread lack of electric charging infrastructure in the US (Araki,
2016).
The decision to fund more light duty EVSE versus hydrogen fuel cell fueling
infrastructure will undoubtedly influence consumers’ decision-making process regarding which
type of vehicle to purchase. Analysts write that the choice between these technologies is
complicated, and is associated with uncertainty. They find that the key areas of policy concern
when evaluating alternative light duty vehicle charging or fueling infrastructure are: direct and
indirect environmental impacts; vehicle range between refueling; weight and volume of energy
or fuel cell storage; costs of purchase and operation of vehicle and fuels; durability of key
components; demands to infrastructure for fuels; need for a break with the present development
of technologies and fuels; and flexibility, not least with respect to energy resources (Kalhammer
et. al., 2007; Kempton et al., 2001).
Regarding these key areas of concern, one factor to consider is that EVs can be charged
through common, three-pronged sockets, but with a greatly limited pace of charging. Analysts
find that dedicated electric vehicle recharging stations, that charge much faster, are considered
more energy efficient as compared to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. For comparison, hydrogen
fueling station infrastructure is considered expensive, and a major drawback (Jorgenson, 2008).
Additionally, regarding hydrogen production “…low-GHG methods are currently more
expensive and need further development to be competitive (“Transitions to”, 2013). Building the
hydrogen infrastructure will be a large, complex, and expensive undertaking” (“Transitions to”,
2013).
Although the settlement decree allows funding for the construction of public hydrogen
fuel cell charging stations, my data analysis will only consider EV charging infrastructure. There

17
are simply too few hydrogen fuel cell public charging stations in Virginia to conduct a robust
statistical analysis to understand the impact of increasing investment in them. Nationwide there
is not enough for analysts to rigorously evaluate and estimate the effectiveness of their
installation in terms of pollution abated per dollar invested. The AFDC shows that there are no
hydrogen fuel cell public charging stations in Virginia, and only 58 nationwide that are
publically registered (“Alternative”, 2017).
Replacing Heavy & Medium-Duty Diesel Trucks and Buses
Although my analysis is ultimately limited to how it relates to consumer-driven, light-
duty EVs, I provide some analysis of the other settlement decree options here as they relate to
my client’s mission. In the DOJ’s settlement decree, it states that policy options facing
beneficiaries of the settlement include funding the cost of alternative-fuel charging infrastructure
for alternatively-fueled vehicles, and the cost of the vehicles themselves, to replace medium and
heavy-duty diesel buses and trucks, including government and non-government-owned school,
transit, and shuttle buses, and the necessary fueling and recharging stations with them (Cruden,
Engel, & Van Eaton, 2016). The DOJ also includes a potential policy option to fund the
construction of charging stations at heavy-duty truck stops (Cruden, Engel, & Van Eaton, 2016).
The vast majority of research that exists today relates to battery-powered engines in these types
of vehicles.
The EIA predicts that given trends in the US economy, medium and heavy-duty VMT is
expected to significantly grow through 2040 (Energy, 2017). The EIA also finds that, “diesel
remains the dominant fuel for trucks despite increasing use of alternative fuels”. Estimations of
demand for diesel consumption incorporate considerations of relatively new emission and fuel
economy regulations placed on the heavy-duty trucking industry in 2016. However, based on
statements from the Trump administration, the future of those regulations is uncertain (Devaney,
2017).
Today, heavy-duty trucks in the United States are largely diesel-fueled, or otherwise
depend on fossil fuels: the American Transportation Research Institute finds that more than 92%
of heavy-duty trucks run on fossil fuels today (Torrey and Murray, 2015). Some academic
research suggests that battery-electric heavy duty trucks and buses represent the best option in
terms of lifecycle emissions, costs, and externalities as compared to other types of heavy duty
trucks in the United States (Ercan, 2017). However, this finding is based on the assumption that

18
the electricity provided to fuel the battery-electric truck is primarily generated from renewable
resources, which is unrealistic given how variable sources of electricity are throughout regions in
the US. More specifically, the authors of the study assume that the electricity used to fuel the
battery-electric trucks is from the Northeast Power Coordinating Council’s electricity grid mix,
which is only about 10% from coal (Ercan, 2017).
The number of battery-powered heavy-duty transit buses on the road in the US today is
insignificant (“Medium”, 2015). Per unit, the buses cost almost twice as much as the same sized
bus powered by diesel (“Medium”, 2015). Although the settlement decree allows investment in
medium-duty, alternatively-fueled school buses, they are not yet commercially available
(“Medium”, 2015). Without being on the market, it is difficult to expect a robust analysis on
them as they relate to public policy.
Researchers find that battery-powered heavy-duty trucks will not penetrate the market for
at least several decades (“Medium”, 2015). James Eberhardt of the DOE argues that the most
formidable barrier for the use of alternative fuels in heavy-duty trucks is, “...the lack of a fuel
production and distribution infrastructure. Commercial transport operators depend on the ready
availability of cost-competitive fuel for seamless operation and for profitability” (Eberhardt). As
mentioned above, due to the lack of data on the kind of infrastructure necessary to fuel or charge
heavy-duty trucks, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the effects of present investment in them.

VII: Evaluative Criteria & Analysis

In my analysis, I focus on variables relevant to my client’s mission. In the DOJ
settlement decree with VW, the “eligible mitigation actions and mitigation action expenditures,”
for beneficiaries goes beyond policies that involve transportation. I narrow the focus of my APP
analysis to investment choice policies as defined in the part of the settlement decree I outlined in
the above “Background” section. Ultimately, I contribute original research to existing literature
by conducting my analysis specific to these policy options outlined in the settlement decree, by
incorporating local county characteristics unique to Virginia, and translating investment in EVSE
by technology to estimates of environmental benefit.
Benefits
For each of the potential investment options in my analysis, I evaluate cost effectiveness
in terms of the following: GHG emissions (short ton) avoided by year, and criteria air pollutants

19
(pound) avoided by year. Given the scope of my analysis, the resources available to me, and the
language of the settlement decree, I limit the “criteria air pollutants” studied to NOx and PM.
The settlement decree also establishes number of EVs as an essential criterion. So, the estimated
number of EVs added under each investment option is a key criterion in my analysis. Another
evaluative criterion I consider is “future use”. Future use refers to the rate at which I anticipate
EVSE to be used by technology level, as compared to today’s levels. It is based on my
understanding of today’s EVSE usage rates, how I anticipate EV capabilities to change, and
change in consumers’ general knowledge of EVs.
Estimating the environmental benefits of investment in light-duty public EVSE is
complex. It requires estimating the direct effect of investment in EVSE on Virginians’ propensity
to purchase and use EVs, given local county characteristics and current trends in EV ownership.
No other literature currently exists that estimates the effect of investment in light-duty public
EVSE on consumer take up of EVs in Virginia. I eventually convert estimated take up of EVs to
estimated environmental benefit, specific to local Virginia characteristics at the county and
independent city level. The estimated environmental benefit is ultimately compared to a baseline
of “conventional travel” in Virginia. I discuss the specific methods used in my analysis in the
“Methods” section.
AFLEET Model
AFLEET is a useful model that provides a framework for analyzing the impact of policies
affecting the investment in fleets of alternatively-fueled Class 8 large trucks, Class 4-8 buses,
Class 4-7 medium trucks, and light-duty ZEVs. All vehicle and fuel types identified in the DOJ
settlement decree are represented by data in the AFLEET model. Default data sources can be
modified by the user to reflect local characteristics. In the AFLEET model, costs of ownership
are estimated in terms of the “Total Cost of Ownership” (TCO). By definition, TCO,
“…evaluates the net present value of operating and fixed costs over the years of planned
ownership of a new vehicle, as well as lifetime petroleum use, GHGs and air pollutant
emissions…” (“AFLEET Tool”, 2016). The data used to estimate these costs come from a
variety of reputable sources, and are converted to net present value using a common consumer
index tool. For instance, vehicle prices are sourced from fueleconomy.gov, some operating costs
are from AAA, and default travel data from the National Highway Transportation Survey
(“Vehicle cost”, 2016). The data sources and assumptions used in the model are verified by the

20
AFDC.
AFLEET uses environmental benefits assumptions established by the AFDC that convert
units of alternative fuel into equal gasoline gallon equivalents to calculate CO2e emissions
(“Fuel properties”, 2014). Once given the gasoline gallon equivalent rate of efficiency for each
alternative fuel source, it is multiplied by, “…a common conversion factor of 8,887 grams of
CO2 emissions per gallon of gasoline consumed…” as outlined in the federal register (“Light-
Duty”, 2010). Estimations of criteria air pollution emissions in AFLEET, “…were derived from
ten years of second-by-second data from Arizona’s Inspection/Maintenance (I/M), with
comparisons to other I/M programs and remote sensing data...” as well as other, “detailed
studies” (Beardsley et al.). The model incorporates local characteristics as, “…for air pollutants
the location where they are emitted does play a major role as they impact local air quality”
(“AFLEET Tool”, 2016).
Regarding electricity as a fuel source, AFLEET incorporates estimates of the local energy
supply mix by state, and specific county within it. Electricity generation source varies within the
state as well on a county and independent city level basis. Virginia’s counties are divided
between two NERC entities. Much of Western Virginia is part of the “ReliabilityFirst” region,
while Eastern Virginia is part of the “SERC Reliability Corporation”. Energy supply mixes are
provided by the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) (“Profile overview”, 2017). The
AFLEET model also allows the user to input a custom electricity mix in the event that the
provided electricity mixes are outdated, or otherwise irrelevant due to growing use of any one
source in electricity generation.
“Conventional Travel” in Virginia
I compare estimated environmental benefit of an additional EV driven on the road in
Virginia to “conventional travel,” otherwise known as a baseline. It requires knowing what car
drivers would likely drive if not an EV. Fortunately, my client was able to provide me the vast
majority of the percent of vehicle population by fuel type for Virginia as of December, 2015
from the NREL. The data exists as follows: 2.36% diesel; 0.03% EV; 6.02% “flexible” (can run
on 85% ethanol blend gasoline); 89.39% gasoline; 1.67% hybrid gasoline; and 0.04% plug-in
hybrid electric vehicle (Lynch, 2017). All other rates are insignificant and not included in the
AFLEET model which I use to estimate environmental benefit. I combine this information with
my analytic results of estimated additional EVs driven in Virginia due to an increase in public

21
EVSE from the investment in the Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund. The estimated
environmental benefit is the difference in air pollutant emissions in operating the same number
of “business as usual” vehicles, as compared to EVs, given the local electricity generation source
mix. I use AFLEET to estimate total air pollutant emissions abated per year.
Costs
The costs of each investment policy option relate to the acquisition, installation,
operation, and maintenance of EVSE, as outlined in the settlement decree. All costs, other than
acquisition, are highly variable. There is a general consensus that EVSE technology costs will
continue to decline over the next several decades. The costs of EVSE installation are primarily
driven by: “Trenching or boring a long distance to lay electrical supply conduit...Modifying or
upgrading the electrical panel… Upgrading the electrical service…” and labor costs (“Costs”,
2015). Operation and maintenance is primarily driven by electricity consumption charges over
the course of a year, and any repair necessary. Costs of electricity consumption are higher for
Level 2 and 3 because they are more likely to be used during times of peak electricity demand
(“Costs”, 2015). Another important cost relates to signage of EVSE to enhance visibility.
Unfortunately, the settlement decree does not explicitly allow funds to be allocated for signage.
In accordance with the industry standard, I assume a 10 year usable life span of EVSE and
allocate operation and maintenance costs accordingly.
Although costs are highly variable, I ultimately assume “middle cost,” best estimate
scenario costs established by the DOE. Under this scenario, it is most cost-effective to install 3
ports per Level 1 station, 2 per Level 2 station, and 2 per Level 3 station. As costs stand today
Table 1, above, shows the costs I assume for acquisition, installation, operation, and maintenance
of EVSE by technology type, as well as charge time for each. The electricity costs assume
average electricity consumption of public EVSE of the past. In this case, I assume 2184 kWh per
year for Level 1 stations, 20592 kWh per year for Level 2 stations, and 22556 kWh per year for
Level 3 stations (“Costs”, 2015”). For each station I assume a standard $50 repair per year, as
estimated by the DOE (“Costs”, 2015”).

VIII: Data
In order to conduct my analysis, I constructed my own original panel-dataset, and merged
existing data together. The data in my analysis is for the 2012-2015 time period, and the 80 most

22
populated counties or independent cities in Virginia. The populations of these counties are
20,000 or more. Table 4 in the Appendix shows which counties and independent cities are
included in my analysis. I got the county and independent level characteristic data from the US
Census Bureau. More specifically, the data is collected at the level as part of the ACS which is
conducted at least once a year. Income is defined as the average household income of each
county or independent city for each year available. Educational attainment refers to the
probability that an individual aged over 25 years who has a bachelor's degree or above for every
county and independent city, and for each year available. “Politics” is a binary indicator of
democrat or republican affiliation as defined by voting results in the 2012 presidential election.
The EVSE data comes from the AFDC, which is hosted on the DOE’s website. The
AFDC has a tool to locate alternative fuel stations within each state, and download a
corresponding spreadsheet. It allows the user to specify the type of fueling station (electric,
natural gas, etc.) and availability (public or private) within each state. In its fueling station data
collection methods, the AFDC follows what it considers “best practices,” and works in close
collaboration with the NREL, “infrastructure equipment and fuel provides, original equipment
manufacturers (OEMs), and industry groups” (“About the Alternative Fueling”, 2017). The
AFDC verifies stations yearly, determining if they are still operational, and still providing the
original fuel specified. Each station is recorded with a highly specific location using longitudinal
and latitudinal coordinates. Within the context of my present analysis, I only consider public
EVSE as indicated in the AFDC station locator spreadsheet. The spreadsheet of EVSE includes
the number of ports at each station by technology type. It also includes the date of which it was
open to public use. Given the coordinates of each, I assigned each station to a county or
independent city included in my analysis. With this data, I was able to allocate the number of
EVSE ports by technology level (L1, L2, L3) to each county or independent city, and each year
of which they were opened to the public. In my regression analysis, I control for the number of
stations in a county or independent city in a given year to better isolate the effect of an additional
port on EV take-up. Given stations vary in the number of ports they have, stations with fewer
ports are less effective in charging an additional EV at any time.
For my dependent variable, I obtained light-duty EV ownership data by county and
independent city level, and year from my client. My client originally obtained the data from the
DMV. More specifically, the source of the data is titled the, “Virginia DMV Annual Vehicle

23
Registration Data provided to Virginia DEQ in July each year”. Table 5 in the appendix shows
the summary statistics of each variable used in my analysis.

IX: Approach & Methods

The ideal empirical approach in answering my research question is to conduct a
randomized, controlled experiment. But that is not possible. So, I use a fixed-effects regression
approach to estimate the impact of investment in light-duty EV supply equipment by technology
type, on consumer take-up of EVs in Virginia weighted by the total population aged over 25, the
age of a typical EV driver. This methodology is sometimes called a “quasi” or “semi”
experimental approach. The approach allows me to control for any fixed-effects of time and
space that may influence my study. Local geography and terrain likely influence people’s
decision-making processes when considering whether or not to purchase an EV. For instance, if a
county is in a predominately urban environment, the fuel economy of an EV is severely
diminished. If the county mostly has flat, long highways the fuel economy of an EV operating
there is high. My control for the fixed-effects of time is also critical. By doing so, I can
essentially control for existing trends in EV ownership in the state, and isolate the effect of new
investment in EVSE.
Existing literature based in Connecticut compares concentrations of EV charging
infrastructure with the number of registered consumer-owned EVs in a given county. The
specific model I reference is from the NREL, titled, “Regional Charging Infrastructure for Plug-
in Electric Vehicles: A Case Study of Massachusetts” (Elchman et al., 2017). The authors
created a multivariate regression model that estimates the isolated impact of EV public charging
infrastructure growth on consumers’ take-up of EVs. The model also controls for other relevant
county characteristics, including indicators of income, education, and local EV financial
incentives (Elchman et al., 2017). My model uses elements of the Massachusetts study.
Another useful approach to analyze the problem at hand is to standardize the key
independent variables by transforming them into natural logs. With this approach, I could
interpret the regression results as a percent change in the dependent variable, given a unit change
in one of the independent variables. The results would effectively indicate the elasticity of
investment in EVSE by technology level in terms of how much it increases EV ownership per
capita in Virginia. My current dataset does not permit this approach. In conducting my analysis, I

24
suspect that the effect of investment in EVSE eventually has diminishing marginal returns in
terms of how it affects EV ownership per capita. I attempted to evaluate at what point marginal
returns diminish by creating quadratic transformations of the key independent variables.
However, the regression results indicated that investment in EVSE eventually has a negative
effect on the take up of EVs in Virginia. In practice, the finding is unlikely to be valid and
delegitimizes that approach.

X: Results
The results of my fixed-effects regression analysis show a statistically-significant, linear
relationship of EV ownership per capita over 25 years of age on the number of Level 1 and Level
2 ports. Table 3 in the Appendix presents the direct results of the regression. I expect public
EVSE located in the highest population counties and independent cities get the most use over
their 10-year usable life span, which translates into more EV ownership per capita. These
counties and independent cities are: Virginia Beach City, Prince William County, and Fairfax
County. The regression results reveal that the average effect of a L1 port in the top 3 counties
and independent cities in Virginia on EV take-up ranges from 11.0-29.7 in additional EVs. With
a p-value of 0.013, I am 99.99% confident that this relationship of the effect of L1 ports on take-
up of EVs in Virginia exists, and is not due to random chance. A $10,000 investment in Level 1,
including acquisition, installation, operation, and maintenance with a 10 year usable life span in
the top 3 counties and independent cities results in EV take-up of 30.3-82.0.
The average effect of a L2 port in the top 3 counties and independent cities in Virginia on
EV take-up ranges from 6.5-17.6 in additional EVs. Again, with a p-value of 0.010, I am 99.99%
confident that this relationship of the effect of L2 ports on take-up of EVs in Virginia exists, and
is not due to random chance. A $10,000 investment in Level 2, including acquisition,
installation, operation, and maintenance with a 10-year usable life span in the top 3 counties and
independent cities results in EV take-up of 5.5-14.8. The effect of L3 ports is not statistically
significant (p>.05), which I will discuss in more detail in the following section.
None of the other variable coefficients are statistically-significant indicators of EV
ownership per capita in Virginia counties and independent cities. My regression model has
strong predictive power, given its R-squared value of 0.914: its variables explain 91.4% of the
variation in EV ownership per capita in Virginia for the years 2012-2015.

25
XI: Limitations
My panel-dataset is ultimately “unbalanced”. This means that each county or independent
city is not represented by each year in the 2012-2015 timespan. The US Census Bureau records
county and independent city level characteristic data of populations for each year for those of
populations greater than or equal to 20,000 of which there are 80. These are called “1-year
supplemental estimates” collected nationwide as a part of the ACS. This dataset includes the
county and independent city data I use to indicate average income level, educational attainment,
total population size, and population by age. However, these data are only collected and
representative of 2014 and 2015. For 2012 and 2013, I use the ACS “1-year estimates” which are
representative of each year 2012-2015, but only from counties and independent cities of
populations greater than or equal to 65,000. There are 30 counties or independent cities in
Virginia that are greater than or equal to 65,000 in population.
There is available data on EV ownership and EVSE in Virginia for 2016 and 2017.
However, I cannot use it because the ACS results are not yet available for those years. Therefore,
the results of my analysis are not as representative of the current situation in Virginia as possible.
Additionally, there may be an issue of “leakage” in my panel-dataset. I expect that EV owners in
Virginia do not exclusively use the EVSE that is located in the county or independent city in
which the EV is officially registered by the DMV.
Given that the settlement decree specifies funding based on where public EVSE stations
are located, my study would greatly benefit from more descriptive data on the location of
existing EVSE in the state. For instance, my analysis would ideally include variables of EVSE
that indicate if it exists at a workplace, a multi-unit dwelling, or government-owned public
property. With these data points, my recommendation would be more specific to decisions on
how to invest the award provided by the settlement decree.

XII: Recommendation
Ultimately, I recommend using Environmental Mitigation Trust Fund money to
investment in $10,000 increments of Level 1 public EVSE, with a priority in the most populated
counties and independent cities in Virginia. Table 6 summarizes my analysis and my
recommendation. I expect returns on investment of Level 1 public EVSE to be the highest in
localities like Virginia Beach City, Prince William County and Fairfax County since they contain

26
the largest populations of typical EV owners (population aged 25 or older). Investment in Level
1 public EVSE results in significantly higher returns in all quantified evaluative criteria, as
compared to investment in Level 2 or Level 3. My recommendation to invest incrementally is
due to my suspicion that investment eventually has diminishing marginal returns. With continued
use of the evaluative model I have created here, marginal returns can be observed in $10,000
incremental investments. When and if marginal returns become significantly diminished, I
recommend reevaluation of each investment option’s cost-effectiveness. I believe my analytical
model provide key insights into the dynamics of the relationship between public EVSE and EV
take-up. Future investment policy should be reflective of new data and technology
characteristics, like cost and charge time. I interpret the specific results and implications of each
option in more detail in the final section.

Table 6: Outcomes Matrix

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3

investment investment investment

EV 30.3 – 82.0 5.5 – 14.8 n/a (p>.05)

GHG abated (short tons/year) 84.7 – 226.3 15.5 – 38.7 n/a

NOx abated (pounds/year) 110.9 – 300.1 20.2 – 54.3 n/a

PM abated (pounds/year) 5.9 – 15.9 1.1 – 2.8 n/a

“Future use” Medium High n/a

Cost $10,000 $10,000 n/a

XIII: Discussion
At face value, the results that Level 2 technology yields lower EV take-up, and that the
effect of Level 3 is insignificant go against the technological strengths of each. I argue it’s the
result of today’s EV battery limitations. Today, EVs are only practical, to most people, for short
commutes. Typically, this includes a trip to an office every day, and back to home to charge on a

27
common outlet charger. Or maybe frequent trips to an airport. At those locations, cars are often
left to charge 8 hours or more. A Level 2 or Level 3 station will not make a significant difference
given today’s EV. The EV is not meant for that yet. They cannot compete with ICEs that have
great range, fuel quickly, and are comparatively less expensive. However, I anticipate that as
consumers learn more about EVs and their corresponding EVSE, and batteries grow in capacity,
they will begin to demand more Level 2 EVSE in places where Level 1 EVSE used to be
adequate. The future use anticipation is a key variable to consider, but at this time I cannot weigh
it highly in my recommendation. The quantified results command more attention.

28
 Appendix

Figure 1

Source: Ewing, J., Gates, G., Russell, K., & Watkins, D. (2017).
Figure 2

Source: “Air Quality: Virginia”, (2017).

29
 Figure 3

Source: “Virginia ambient air monitoring”, (2015).

Figure 4

Source: Vehicle weight classes & categories (DOE).

Table 2: Virginia’s electricity energy mix

30
 Residual oil 0.7%

Natural gas 44.2%

Coal 16.9%

Nuclear 32.4%

Hydroelectric 1.5%

Others 4.3%

Source: Profile overview: Virginia (2017).

Table 3: Fixed-Effects Regression Analysis

Dependent Variable: EV ownership per capita aged greater than or equal to 25 years

Independent Variables Coefficients

Level 1 port 3.84e-05**

(1.52e-05)

Level 2 port 2.27e-05**

(8.74e-06)

Level 3 port 4.01e-06

(6.90e-06)

Household income 1.28e-09

(2.59e-09)

Educational attainment -1.33e-05

(0.000611)

31
Total number of stations -2.53e-05

(1.60e-05)

Democrat 0.000120

(0.000114)

Year -

County or independent city -

Constant 0.00224***

(0.000122)

Observations 216

R-squared 0.914

Standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Table 4
County or independent city (FIPS code) included in fixed-effects regression analysis:
51003, 51009, 51013, 51015, 51019, 51023, 51027, 51031, 51033, 51035, 51041, 51047, 51053,
51059, 51061, 51065, 51067, 51069, 51073, 51075, 51083, 51085, 51087, 51089, 51093, 51095,
51099, 51105, 51107, 51109, 51117, 51121, 51127, 51137, 51139, 51143, 51145, 51147, 51149,
51153, 51155, 51161, 51163, 51165, 51167, 51169, 51171, 51173, 51177, 51179, 51185, 51187,
51191, 51195, 51197, 51199, 51510, 51540, 51550, 51590, 51600, 51630, 51650, 51660, 51670,
51680, 51683, 51700, 51710, 51730, 51740, 51760, 51770, 51775, 51790, 51800, 51810, 51820,
51840, 51001

Table 5

mean

32
Variable (standard
deviation)

EV per capita 0.000226

population aged 25
or older

(0.000290)

L1 ports 0.250

(1.122)

L2 ports 2.120

(3.420)

L3 ports 0.917

(2.096)

Household income 60,256

(20,980)

Educational 0.117
attainment

(0.0662)

Number of EVSE 1.968

stations

(2.647)

33
Democrat 0.389

(0.489)

2013 0.139

(0.347)

2014 0.361

(0.481)

2014 0.361

(0.481)

2012 0.139

(0.347)

Observations 216

34
 Works Cited
About DOJ. (2017). DOJ. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/about
About NREL. (2017). NREL. Retrieved from: https://www.nrel.gov/about/
About the Alternative Fuesl Data Center (2016). AFDC. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/about.html
About us: mission. (2017). DOE. Retrieved from: https://energy.gov/about-us
AFLEET Tool User Guide 2016. (2016). Argonne Labs. Retrieved from:
https://greet.es.anl.gov/afleet
Air Quality: Virginia. (2017). VaperForms. Retrieved from:
http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/naturalResources/airQuality.php
Alternative Fuels Data Center. (2017). Key federal legislation. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/laws/key_legislation.
Alternative Fuels Station Locator. (2017). AFDC. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/
An analysis of price volatility in natural gas markets. (2007). Office of Oil and Gas. Retrieved
from:
https://www.eia.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/feature_articles/2007/ngprivolatility/ngpriv
olatility.pdf
Araki, M., González Palencia, J., & Shiga, S. (2016). Energy, environmental and economic
impact of mini-sized and zero-emission vehicle diffusion on a light-duty vehicle fleet.
Applied Energy, 181. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261916311333
Autonomous vehicle technology: how to best realize its social benefits. (2014). RAND. Retrieved
from:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/RB9700/RB9755/RAND_R
B9755.pdf
Beardsley, M., Dolce, G., Koupal, J., & Warila, J. Air pollution emission from highway vehicles.
EPA. Retrieved from:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei18/session6/beardsley.pdf
Bhatia, K., & Riddell, W. Identifying and modeling key trade-offs between hydrogen fuel cell
and electric vehicles. Sustainable Engineering, 9. Retrieved from:

35
 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19397038.2015.1128494
Borken-Kleefeld, H., et al. (2015). How will greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles be
constrained in China around 2030?. Applied Energy, 156. Retrieved from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.07.018
Bradford, D., Kim, N., Mauzerall, D., & Sultan, B. (2005). NO emissions from large point
x

sources: variability in ozone production, resulting health damages and economic costs.
Atmospheric Environment, 39. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231005000907
Bush, B., & Sun, M. (2014). Retail Infrastructure Costs Comparison for Hydrogen and
Electricity for Light-Duty Vehicles. NREL. Retrieved from:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60944.pdf
Canis, B., Lattanzio, R., Vann, A., & Yacobucci, B. (2016). Volkswagen, Defeat Devices, and
the Clean Air Act: Frequently Asked Questions. Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved from: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44372.pdf
Chang, M., McNearney, J., Needell, Z., & Trancik, J. (2016). Potential for widespread
electrification of personal vehicle travel in the United States. Nature. Retrieved from:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nenergy2016112
Clean cities: goals and accomplishments. DOE. Retrieved from:
https://cleancities.energy.gov/accomplishments/
Clean cities. DOE. Retrieved from:
https://cleancities.energy.gov/accomplishments/
Copeland, C., & McCarthy, J. (2011). EPA’s Regulation of Coal-Fired Power: Is a “Train
Wreck” Coming?. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41914.pdf
Costs Associated With non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment. (2015). US DOE.
Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/evse_cost_report_2015.pdf
Criteria Air Pollutants. (2017). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved from:
https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants
Cruden, J., Engel, B. & Van Eaton, J. (2016). Partial consent decree: Case no: MDL No.
2627 CRB (JSC). Department of Justice. Retrieved from:

36
 https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/871306/download
Devaney, T. (2017). Trump delays dozens of EPA regs. The Hill. Retrieved from:
http://thehill.com/regulation/316049-trump-delays-dozens-of-epa-regs
Dooley, J. (2011). Electric vehicles: reducing foreign oil dependence, enhancing US
competitiveness and decreasing pollution. Pew. Retrieved from:
http://energy.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/energynvgov/content/Programs/PEW_EVs%20-
%20Reducing%20Foreign%20Oil%20Depedence,%20Enhancing%20U.S.pdf
Eberhardt, J. Future fuels for heavy-duty trucks. DOE. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/truk6-2.pdf
Elchman, J., Melania, M., Raghaven, S., & Rames, C. Regional Charging Infrastructure for Plug-
In Electric Vehicles: A Case Study of Massachusetts. (2017). NREL. Retrieved from:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy17osti/67436.pdf
Energy Information Association. (2017). Annual Energy Outlook 2017 with Projections to 2050.
Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2017).pdf
Energy Information Association. (2013). Annual Energy Outlook 2013 with Projections to 2040.
Retrieved from: http://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2013).pdf
Ercan, T., Tatari, O., & Sen, B. (2017). Does a battery-electric truck make a difference? – Life
cycle emissions, costs, and externality analysis of alternative fuel-powered Class 8
heavy-duty trucks in the United States. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141. Retrieved
from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616313877
Ewing, J., Gates, G., Russell, K., & Watskins, D. (2017). How Volkswagen has grappled with its
diesel scandal. New York Times. Retrieved from:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/business/international/vw-diesel-emissions-
scandal-explained.html
Fuel properties comparison. (2014). AFDC. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf
Furguson, M., Garnett, R., Kanaroglou, P., & Mahmoud, M. (2016). Electric buses: A review of
alternative powertrains. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review, 62. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032116301290?np=y&npKey=85
7d09eaf75a318d651750714dc8d14f6edeed70c55ba8cb9d88e6003cf99c63
Gardner, S., Noori, M., & Tatari, O. (2015). Electric vehicle costs, emissions, and water footprint

37
 in the United States. Energy. Retrieved from:
http://wordpress.vermontlaw.edu/energy/files/2016/10/Energy_ElectricVehicleRegionalO
ptimization_Paper.pdf
Global EV Outlook 2016: Beyond one million electric cars. (2016). International Energy
Agency. Retrieved from:
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/Global_EV_Outlook_2016.
pdf
Glossary of statistical terms. (2013). OECD. Retrieved from:
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=285
GREET Model. (2017). Argonne Labs. Retrieved from: https://greet.es.anl.gov
Holland, S., Mansur, E., Muller, N., & Yates, A. (2016). Damages and Expected Deaths Due to
Excess NO Emissions from 2009 to 2015 Volkswagen Diesel Vehicles. Environmental
x

Science Technology, 50. Retrieved from:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b05190
Hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles. (2017). AFDC. Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric.html
Jorgenson, K. (2008). Technologies for electric, hybrid and hydrogen vehicles: Electricity from
renewable energy sources in transport. Utilities Policy, 16. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957178707000781
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science.
Retrieved from:
https://people.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/Ec101/JudgementUncertainty.pdf
Kalhammer, F., et al. (2007). Status and Prospects for Zero Emission Vehicle Technology-
Report of the ARB Independent Expert Panel 2007. State of California Air Resources
Board. Retrieved from: https://goo.gl/YdbNt4
Kay, A., Noland, R., & Rodier, C. (2014). Achieving reductions in greenhouse gases in the US
road transportation sector. Energy Policy, 69. Retrieved from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514001013
Kempton, W., et al. (2001). Vehicle-to-Grid Power: Battery, Hybrid, and Fuel Cell Vehicles as
Resources for Distributed Electric Power in California. Institute of Transportation
Studies. Retrieved from: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0qp6s4mb

38
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule. (2010). Government Publishing Office. Retrieved from:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-05-07/pdf/2010-8159.pdf
Lynch, L. (2017). Email with Lauren Lynch of the NREL.
Medium- and heavy-duty battery electric trucks and buses. (2015). California Air Resources
Board. Retrieved from:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/tech/techreport/bev_tech_report.pdf
Murray, D. & Torrey, F. (2014). An Analysis of the Operational Costs of Trucking: 2014
Update. Transportation Research Board. Retrieved from:
https://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=1324567
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Control Regulations. (2017). EPA. Retrieved from:
https://www3.epa.gov/region1/airquality/nox.html
Particulate matter (PM) pollution. (2017). EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/pm-
pollution
Pedersen, J., Potoglou, D., Tsang, F., & Wooding, S. (2012). Bringing the electric vehicle to the
mass market. RAND. Retrieved from:
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/working_papers/2012/RAND_WR775.pdf
Profile overview: Virginia. (2017). EIA. Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=VA
Puentes, R. (2012). Have Americans Hit Peak Travel? International Transport Forum
Roundtable on Long Run Trends in Travel Demand, 97. Retrieved from:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/have-americans-hit-peak-travel_5k4c1s3c415b-en
Ramadhas, A. (2011). Alternative Fuels for Transportation. CNC. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-
zHNBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=potential+of+alternative+fuels+transportation
&ots=szSEGJ6eoO&sig=yfya1_6cVa_egKG7eKRI05_e7GQ#v=onepage&q=potential%
20of%20alternative%20fuels%20transportation&f=false
Randall, T. (2016). Here’s how electric cars will cause the next oil crisis. Bloomberg. Retrieved
from: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/
Reliability: Accountability. (2017). NERC. Retrieved from: nerc.com
Reviewing National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS): scientific and technical
information. (2017). EPA. Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/naaqs

39
Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. (2014). The reasons for the recent decline in young driver licensing in
the United States. Traffic Inj. Prev., 15. Retrieved from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389588.2013.839993
Schoettle, B., & Sivak, M. (2011). Recent changes in the age composition of US drivers:
implications for the extent, safety, and environmental consequences of personal
transportation
Traffic Inj. Prev., 12. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22133334
Sloan, M. (2016). 2016 propane market outlook. Propane Education & Research Council.
Retrieved from:
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/uploads/publication/2016_propane_market_outlook.pdf
Smith, B. (2013). Human error as a cause of vehicle crashes. Stanford. Retrieved from:
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/12/human-error-cause-vehicle-crashes
Smith, M. (2015). Non-residential electric vehicle supply equipment costs. DOE. Retrieved
from:
https://cleancities.energy.gov/files/u/news_events/document/document_url/154/EVSE_C
ost_Webinar_FINAL.pdf
Transitions to alternative vehicles and fuels. (2013). National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering & Medicine. Retrieved from: https://www.nap.edu/read/18264/chapter/6#76
US Department of Justice. (2016). In Re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales,
Practices, and Products Liability Litigation. Retrieved from:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/871306/download
Vehicle cost calculator assumptions and methodology. (2016). Alternative Fuels Data Center.
Retrieved from: h
ttp://www.afdc.energy.gov/calc/cost_calculator_methodology.html#sources
Vehicle weight classes & categories. DOE. Retrieved from:
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/widgets/10380
Virginia ambient air monitoring 2015 data reporting. (2015). Department of Air Quality.
Retrieved from:
http://www.deq.virginia.gov/Portals/0/DEQ/Air/AirMonitoring/Annual_Report_2015.pdf
What climate change means for Virginia. (2016). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved

40
from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/climate-change-
va.pdf

41