Environmental and Electric Sector Assessment of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)

Eladio M. Knipping, Ph.D. Senior Technical Manager, Environment Novi, MI November 13, 2008

Collaborative Study

Environmental Assessment of Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles Volume 1: Nationwide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Volume 2: United States Air Quality Analysis Based on AEO-2006 Assumptions for 2030

Joint report available at: www.epri.com

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

2

Introduction • Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles: – Reduce net greenhouse gas emissions – Lower petroleum dependency – Improve air quality – Will not impose additional stress on water resources – Improve water quality • Ample generation and transmission capacity • Infrastructure optimizes the potential of grid-connected vehicles

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

3

Fundamental Convergence

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

4

Understanding Environmental Impacts of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles • Environmental impacts of shifting vehicle energy supply from petroleum to electricity • Location and characteristics of vehicle and power plant emissions are different – Temporal, spatial, chemical • Electricity supplied by diverse mix of fuels and plant technologies • New technologies take time to penetrate vehicle fleet • Generation capacity and economics evolve over time – Energy pathway analyses (e.g., GREET) are insufficient to appropriately model these changes

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

5

Scope and Methodology Climate Task • Nationwide greenhouse analysis – Based on EPRI electric system model (NESSIE) • Electric sector evolves over time • Least-cost economics – Monetization of emission allowances – Capital and O&M costs of technology options • Capacity expansion and retirement • Production simulation (dispatch modeling)

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

6

Scope and Methodology Climate Task – Cross-scenario matrix = 9 evaluations • Different transportation sector & PHEV technology/adoption scenarios

• 2010 to 2050 timeframe

2050 Annual CO2e Reduction (million metric tons) Low PHEV Fleet Penetration

Medium High

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

7

Electric Sector CO2 Intensity High

Medium

Low

The Future of the Electric Sector Three Possible Scenarios Key Parameters • Value of CO2 emissions allowances • Plant capacity retirement and expansion • Technology availability, cost and performance • Electricity demand

Scenario Definition

High CO2

Medium CO2

Low CO2

Cost of CO2 Emissions Allowances

Low

Moderate

High

Power Plant Retirements

Slower

Normal

Faster

New Generation Technologies

Unavailable: Coal with CCS New Nuclear New Biomass Lower Performance: SCPC, CCNG, GT, Wind, and Solar

Annual Electricity Demand Growth

1.56% per year on average

SCPC – Supercritical Pulverized Coal GT – Gas Turbine (natural gas)

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

8

Normal Technology Availability and Performance

1.56% per year on average

Available: Retrofit of CCS to existing IGCC and PC plants Higher Performance: Solar 2010 - 2025: 0.45% 2025 - 2050: None

CCNG – Combined Cycle Natural Gas CCS – Carbon Capture and Storage

Value of CO2 Emission Allowances $120

$100 Cost of CO2 per ton

$80

$60

$40

$20

Carbon Dioxide Equivalents: CO2e = CO2 + 23 × CH4 + 296 × N2O

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

9

2050

Low

2045

Medium

2040

2035

High

2030

2025

2020

2015

$0 2010

• CO2 emissions in model controlled by applying a cost to emit on power plant fuel and stack emissions • Higher CO2 costs increase cost of power from higher emitting technologies • Model calculates CO2e includes CO2, N2O, and CH4 emissions from upstream fuels

PHEV Assumptions • Base vehicles derived from EPRI 2001 and 2002 consensus studies on benefits and impacts of HEVs • PHEVs available up to Class 5 vehicles (19,500 lb GVW) • Technology options include PHEV 10, 20 and 40 – No PHEV-60, no BEVs or FCVs • Vehicle assumptions coordinated with MOBILE6 and EMFAC mobile emissions databases – PHEV and HEV have same fuel economy on gasoline – PHEV electricity usage dependent on battery size, annual vehicle miles travelled (VMT) – Electric VMT (eVMT) reduces on-road emissions and gasoline consumption

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

10

PHEV Market Share and Electric VMT Fraction Medium Scenario

• Low, Medium, High PHEV market penetration scenarios • Corresponds to 20%, 60%, and 80% peak market share by 2050 • New vehicles take time to penetrate fleet 70% 60% 50% New Vehicle Sales

40%

On-Road Vehicles

30% 20%

All-Electric VMT

10% 0% 2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

Growth of PHEVs and eVMT © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

11

2045

2050

PHEV Charging Profile Assumptions

Charging Fraction

• Base Case represents 74% of energy delivered from 10:00 pm to 6:00 am, 26% between 6:00am and 10:00 pm • Vehicle charged primarily, but not exclusively, at each vehicle’s “home base” • Owners incentivized or otherwise encouraged to use less expensive off-peak electricity • Charge onset delays built into near-term vehicles—allow battery system rest and cooling before recharge • Long-term with large PHEV fleets, utilities will likely use demand response or other programs to actively manage the charging load 10% 5% 0% 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

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

12

Gasoline Well-to-Tank

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Gasoline Tank-to-Wheels

13

Electricity Well-to-Wheels

PHEV - Renewables

PHEV - Central Biomass

PHEV - Adv Nuclear

Natural Gas

PHEV - Nuclear

PHEV - New 2010 GT

PHEV - Old 2010 GT

PHEV - Adv CC

Coal

PHEV - New 2010 CC

PHEV - Old 2010 CC

PHEV - IGCC with CCS

450

PHEV - IGCC

500

PHEV - Adv SPC

PHEV - 2010 New Coal

PHEV - 2010 Old Coal

Hybrid Vehicle

Conventional Vehicle

Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions (g CO2e/mile)

Power Plant-Specific PHEV Emissions in 2010

PHEV 20 – 12,000 Annual Miles Nuclear/Renewable

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

-

Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

600 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions (million metric tons)

• Electricity grid evolves over time • Nationwide fleet takes time to renew itself or “turn over” • Impact would be low in early years, but could be very high in future • A potential 400-500 million metric ton annual reduction in GHG emissions

500 400 300 200 100 0 2010

2015

Low PHEV Share

2020

2025

2030

Medium PHEV Share

2035

2040

2045

2050

High PHEV Share

Annual Reduction in GHG Emissions due to PHEV Adoption

14

Overall CO2e Results • All nine scenarios resulted in CO2e reductions from PHEV adoption • Every region of the country will see reductions • In the future, PHEVs charged from new coal (highest emitter) w/o CCS roughly equivalent to HEV, superior to CV – There is unlikely to be a future electric scenario where PHEVs do not return CO2e benefit 2050 Annual CO2e Reduction (million metric tons)

PHEV Fleet Penetration

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Electric Sector CO2 Intensity High

Medium

Low

Low

163

177

193

Medium

394

468

478

High

474

517

612

15

Power Generation in the United States 6000

Billion Kilowatthours

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Renewable

1985 Hydro

1990

1995

Nuclear

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Fossil

• Moderate electricity demand growth: ~6% • Capacity expansion: ~3%; 19 to 72 GW by 2050 nationwide (1.2 – 4.6%) • 3-4 million barrels per day in oil (Medium PHEV Case, 2050) © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

16

2030

Scope and Methodology Air Quality Task • Consistent with U.S. Department of Energy’s 2006 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) • Two Scenarios in 2030: – 0% and Medium PHEV Penetration • >50% Sales Penetration • >40% Fleet Penetration; >20% eVMT – Model power-plant capacity expansion, generation and emissions using North American Electricity and Environment Model (NEEM) • Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) • California Million Solar Roofs Initiative • Includes EPA regulations – Full-year air quality analysis using threedimensional air quality model © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

17

U.S. Power Plant Emissions Trends

• Power plant emissions of SO2 and NOx will continue to decrease due to tighter federal regulatory limits (caps) on emissions • Additional local and national regulations further constrain power plant emissions • Air quality is determined by emissions from all sources undergoing chemical reactions within the atmosphere © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

18

Net Changes in Criteria Emissions Due to PHEVs

Vehicle Emissions • NOx, VOC, SO2, PM all decrease • Significant NOx, VOC reductions at vehicle tailpipe • Reduction in refinery and related emissions

100,000 50,000 0 -50,000 Emissions (tons)

Power Plant Emissions • Emissions under caps (SO2, NOx, Hg) are essentially unchanged • Primary PM emissions increase (defined by a performance standard)

-100,000 -150,000 -200,000 -250,000 -300,000 -350,000 -400,000

SOx

NOx

VOC

PM

On-Road Vehicle

-7,716

-236,292

-234,342

-9,255

Refinery and Other Stationary

-23,549

-20,076

-17,804

-3,282

0

-1,293

-103,323

-101

-16,284

58,916

0

49,434

-47,549

-198,745

-355,469

36,796

Distributed Upstream Power Plant

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

19

PHEVs Improve Overall Air Quality Reduced Formation of Ozone • Air quality model simulates atmospheric chemistry and transport • Lower NOx and VOC emissions results in less ozone formation particularly in urban areas

Change in 8-Hour Ozone Design Value (ppb) PHEV Case – Base Case

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

20

PHEVs Improve Overall Air Quality Reduced Formation of Secondary PM2.5 • PM2.5 includes both direct emissions and secondary PM formed in the atmosphere • PHEVs reduce motor vehicle emissions of VOC and NOx • VOCs emissions from power plants are not significant • Total annual SO2 and NOx from power plants capped • The net result of PHEVs is a notable decrease in the formation of secondary PM2.5 Change in Daily PM2.5 Design Value (µg m-3) PHEV Case – Base Case

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

21

Energy vs. Water?

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

22

Water Impacts Water Withdrawals in the United States 500 450

Billions of Gallons Per Day

400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Year Thermoelectric Use: Saline

Thermoelectric Use: Fresh

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Industrial Use: Fresh

23

Agriculture Use: Fresh

Public Supply: Fresh

2000

Power Generation in the United States 6000

Billion Kilowatthours

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Renewable

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

1985 Hydro

24

1990

1995

Nuclear

2000 Fossil

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Water Impacts: Key Points • Total water withdrawals associated with thermoelectric power generation remained fairly steady from 1975 to 2000. • During this same period, thermoelectric power generation more than doubled. • Water withdrawals per unit of thermoelectric power generation (gpd/kWh) have decreased by a factor of three from 1950-2000

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

25

Once Through Cooling

High cooling efficiency • Clean Water Act 316(b) Rules for fish protection • CWA 316(a) thermal discharge limits, especially in drought conditions • Low source water levels can impact cooling • Water quality in drought can be issue

Used where water is plentiful © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

26

Wet Cooling Towers

Substantially less water withdrawal • Higher consumption rate relative to once-through/open-cycle

Used where water is less available or for fish protection reasons © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

27

Dry Cooling

Matimba 6x665MW Coal Courtesy of Eskom

NO water use • Capital Cost • Large space requirement • Hot weather penalty • Wind effects

Used in arid regions or where water is difficult to obtain © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

28

Bighorn 530 MW Combined-Cycle Natural Gas: Air Cooled

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

29

Indirect Dry

Kendal Station Six 686MW Coal Units

Photos Courtesy of Eskom

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

30

Hybrid Cooling

1/3 to 2/3 less water use • Capital costs • Same issues as wet and dry cooling systems

Dominion North Anna Unit 3

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

31

Water Impacts: Key Points • Total water withdrawals associated with thermoelectric power generation remained fairly steady from 1975 to 2000. During this same period, thermoelectric power generation more than doubled. • Water withdrawals per unit of thermoelectric power generation (gpd/kWh) have decreased by a factor of three from 1950-2000 • Water resources, water limitations and technological solutions vary widely by region. • Advanced technologies are being deployed to further reduce the rate of water withdrawal in thermoelectric facilities.

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

32

What about Consumption?

• Although low compared to other consumptive uses, water consumption associated with thermoelectric power is increasing

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

33

Photos courtesy of St. John’s River Power Park

Degraded Water Use • Potential Sources – Waste water treatment plant discharge (effluent) – Produced waters from oil/gas extraction – Storm water flow – Mine drainage – Agricultural runoff – Saline aquifers • Challenges – Consistent water availability and quality – Proximity (transport costs and feasibility) – Treatment costs – Operational impacts (scaling, fouling and corrosion) – Blowdown disposal

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

34

Plants Using Degraded Water • Small to Mid-Size Plants: – Delta Energy Center (CA) – Millennium Power Project (MA) – Lakeland Electric's C.D. McIntosh, Jr. (FL) – AES Granite Ridge (NH) – SWEPCO/Xcel Nichols (TX) – SWEPCO/Xcel Jones (TX) • Palo Verde - only nuclear facility in the world – Treated sewage effluent from the City of Phoenix

Palo Verde; Photo courtesy of SRP

– Treated in 80-acre reservoir for use in cooling towers – More than 20 billion gallons of this water are recycled each year

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

35

Wet Surface Air Cooler

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

36

Cooling Tower Water Recovery SPX Air-2-AirTM Process • 10-30% annual water savings • Recovery to cooling pond or makeup

PNM San Juan Generating Station Photo Courtesy of SPX

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

37

Water Impacts: Key Points • Total water withdrawals associated with thermoelectric power generation remained fairly steady from 1975 to 2000. During this same period, thermoelectric power generation more than doubled. • Water withdrawals per unit of thermoelectric power generation (gpd/kWh) have decreased by a factor of three from 1950-2000. • Water resources, water limitations and technological solutions vary widely by region • Advanced technologies are being deployed to further reduce the rate of water withdrawal in thermoelectric facilities. • Thermoelectric power generation accounts for less than 4% of freshwater consumption in the United States. • New technologies are being developed to reduce freshwater consumption directly or indirectly by enabling further use of brackish waters in thermoelectric power facilities. © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

38

Nitrogen Deposition Impacts

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

39

Nitrogen Deposition Impacts

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

40

PHEVs Improve Overall Air & Water Quality

Reduced Deposition of Sulfates, Nitrates, Nitrogen, Mercury Change in U.S. Deposition Flux (Units Specified Below)

50,000

0

-50,000

-100,000

-150,000

-200,000

-250,000

Sulfate (ton)

Nitrate (ton)

Nitrogen (ton N)

Mercury (g)

Benefit above Threshold

-41,472

-45,490

-32,413

-146,370

Benefit below Threshold

-12,416

-20,995

-22,784

-90,202

Disbenefit above Threshold

23,211

1,581

0

19,712

Disbenefit below Threshold

4,562

3,396

233

28,693

-26,114

-61,508

-54,963

-188,166

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

41

Environmental Conclusions • The electric sector is resilient and responsive to technological and environmental challenges • Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles represent a convergence of the electric and transportation sectors that provides solutions to several environmental issues – Reduce greenhouse gas emissions – Lower petroleum dependency – Improve air quality – Enable the use of strategies to ease stress on water resources – Decrease acid deposition and nutrient (nitrogen) loadings to sensitive waterbodies

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

42

Fundamental Convergence

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

43

Power Generation in the United States 6000

Billion Kilowatthours

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

1975

1980

Renewable

1985 Hydro

1990

1995

Nuclear

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

Fossil

• Moderate electricity demand growth: ~6% • Capacity expansion: ~3%; 19 to 72 GW by 2050 nationwide (1.2 – 4.6%) • 3-4 million barrels per day in oil (Medium PHEV Case, 2050) © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

44

2030

Benefits from and to the Grid

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

45

Charging Requirements

Type

Power Level

Vehicles

Level 1 120 VAC

1.2 – 2.0 kW

PHEVs (10-20 mi range)

Level 2 (low) 240 VAC

2.8 - 3.8 kW

PHEVs, EREVs (20-40 mi range)

Level 2 (high) 240 VAC

6 – 15 kW

EVs (80+ mi range)

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

46

Perspective: Tankless Water Heaters • Effect on required distribution transformer ratings • Effect on secondary conductor requirements • Effect on customer service rating requirements • Effect on power quality (voltage fluctuations or flicker) • Effect of current waveshape on possible transformer saturation, metering, and other effects 11kW

28kW

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

47

Distribution System Impacts • Evaluate localized impacts of PHEVs to utility distribution systems • Participants – ConEd, AEP, Hydro-Quebec, Dominion, TVA, Southern, NU, BC Hydro • Near-to-mid term focus • Study effects and impacts of: – Vehicle market penetration – Charging rate – Level of charge management

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

48

Peak Demand & Load Comparison Peak Demand Is Growing & Load Factor is Declining 24,000

Based on system recorded energy and system peak demand

61%

59% 22,000

Peak MWs

57%

20,000 55%

Asset Utilization

18,000

53%

16,000

51% 2000

2001

2002

2003

Demand © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

2004 Load Factor

49

2005

2006

Get Smart • Smart Grid • Smart Meters • Smart Infrastructure • Smart Charging • Smart Customers • How Smart?

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

50

What is the Smart Grid? • Smart Grid is the interaction of power systems and information technology • Enables greater information flow, superior management of system for reliability, stability, cost, etc. • Empowers ratepayers to manage energy and costs • Standardized communication between vehicles and the grid critical to enabling this link.

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

51

Utility Vision for ‘Smart’ PHEV Infrastructure

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

52

Utility Vision for ‘Smart’ PHEV Infrastructure Efficient Building Systems

Utility Communications Internet Consumer Portal & Building EMS

Distribution Operations

Dynamic Systems Control

Advanced Metering

Renewables PV

Control Interface

Plug -In Hybrids

Data Management

Distributed Generation & Storage

• Provide information and tools to install infrastructure now • Develop designs and migration strategies for an ideal future © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

53

Smart End -Use Devices

Utility Vision for ‘Smart’ PHEV Infrastructure • Safe, intercompatible, and intelligent interface • Common connector and communication standards • Smart Grid enabled – Bi-directional data exchange between vehicle and grid – AMI and non-AMI strategies to enable smart charging • Synergistic with stationary energy storage, distributed generation • Understand system impacts • As-needed public infrastructure • Long-term R&D

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Efficient Building Systems

Utility Communications Internet Consumer Portal & Building EMS

Dynamic Systems Control

Distribution Operations

Advanced Metering

Renewables PV

Control Interface

Plug-In Hybrids

Data Management

54

Distributed Generation & Storage

Smart End-Use Devices

Working Together

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

55

Ford PHEV Program

1st OEM—Utility Demo of PHEV Passenger Vehicles • Fleet demonstration of 21 PHEV Escape prototypes – SCE and 5-7 Utility partners • Analytical effort – development of sustainable business case for PHEVs, including: – Utility value proposition – OEM value proposition – Battery value proposition • $30M total program – $10M DOE Award • First vehicles already delivered – 8-10 in 2008, remainder in 2009 • First nationwide opportunity to test OEM-built and certified vehicles © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

56

General Motors Collaboration • Broad EPRI/utility collaboration • Identify and address barriers to PHEV commercialization • Identify utility preparation for PHEV rollout • Conduct public outreach and education • Address technical aspects of integrating PHEVs to grid

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

57

GM – Utility Collaboration

Joint Infrastructure, Technology, Market Analysis. Captive Fleet Demo. Golden Valley Electric Assn. – Fairbanks, AK

Manitoba Hydro

BC Hydro Snohomish County PUD No. 1 Seattle City Light

Hydro-Québec

Great River Energy

PacifiCorp

Consumers Energy

Portland General Electric

Dairyland Power Nebraska Public Power District

Sacramento Municipal UD

Tri-State G&T

Pacific Gas & Electric

Southern California Edison

Lincoln Electric Kansas City P&L

We Energies

DTE

Central Hudson G&E

EnWin

NYPA

AEP Hoosier

FirstEnergy

ConEd PSEG

Baltimore G&E Public Service NM

Arkansas Electric Coop

Salt River Project

San Diego Gas & Electric

Greystone Power

Duke Energy Progress Energy

Austin Energy

Southern Company

CenterPoint Energy

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dominion VA

58

Summary of EPRI Activities • OEM collaborations and demonstrations – Ford, GM, Eaton • Smart charging technology development and validation • Leading major effort on standards – Vehicle-Grid communications standard is critical • Ongoing evaluations: – Environmental Assessments – Distribution System Impacts – Economic Value of Electric Transportation

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

59

Action Framework… Four Evolving Infrastructures

Creating the Electricity Network of the Future © 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

60

Contact Information Mark Duvall, Ph.D. Program Manager, EPRI Electric Transportation [email protected] 650-855-2591 Eladio M. Knipping, Ph.D. Senior Technical Manager, EPRI Environment [email protected] 650-855-2592

© 2008 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.

61