NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.
Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308
Methodology for Calculating
Cost per Mile for Current and
Future Vehicle Powertrain
Technologies, with Projections
to 2024
Preprint
M. Ruth
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
T.A. Timbario, T.J.Timbario, and M. Laffen
Alliance Technical Services, Inc.
To be presented at SAE 2011 World Congress
Detroit, Michigan
April 12-14, 2011
Conference Paper
NREL/CP-6A10-49231
January 2011
NOTICE
The submitted manuscript has been offered by an employee of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC
(Alliance), a contractor of the US Government under Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Accordingly, the US
Government and Alliance retain a nonexclusive royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of
this contribution, or allow others to do so, for US Government purposes.
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government.
Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty,
express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name,
trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors
expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.
Available electronically at
http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy
and its contractors, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
phone: 865.576.8401
fax: 865.576.5728
email:
mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov
Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
phone: 800.553.6847
fax: 703.605.6900
email:
[email protected]world.gov
online ordering:
http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx
Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721
Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
1
11PFL-0226
Methodology for Calculating Cost-per-Mile for Current and Future
Vehicle Powertrain Technologies, with Projections to 2024
Mark Ruth
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Thomas A. Timbario, Thomas J. Timbario, Melissa Laffen
Alliance Technical Services, Inc.
ABSTRACT
Currently, several cost-per-mile calculators exist that can provide estimates of acquisition and operating costs for consumers and
fleets. However, these calculators are limited in their ability to determine the difference in cost per mile for consumer versus fleet
ownership, to calculate the costs beyond one ownership period, to show the sensitivity of the cost per mile to the annual vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), and to estimate future increases in operating and ownership costs. Oftentimes, these tools apply a constant
percentage increase over the time period of vehicle operation, or in some cases, no increase in direct costs at all over time. A more
accurate cost-per-mile calculator has been developed that allows the user to analyze these costs for both consumers and fleets.
Operating costs included in the calculation tool include fuel, maintenance, tires, and repairs; ownership costs include insurance,
registration, taxes and fees, depreciation, financing, and tax credits. The calculator was developed to allow simultaneous comparisons
of conventional light-duty internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, mild and full hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and fuel cell
vehicles (FCVs). Additionally, multiple periods of operation, as well as three different annual VMT values for both the consumer
case and fleets can be investigated to the year 2024. These capabilities were included since today’s “cost to own” calculators typically
include the ability to evaluate only one VMT value and are limited to current model year vehicles. The calculator allows the user to
select between default values or user-defined values for certain inputs including fuel cost, vehicle fuel economy, manufacturer’s
suggested retail price (MSRP) or invoice price, depreciation and financing rates.
INTRODUCTION
As advanced vehicle technology development programs are undertaken, it is useful to have an understanding of the ownership and
operating costs. Advanced ICE technologies and hybrid propulsion systems have been in the market for a few years, to the point
where acquisition and operating costs can be identified with a high degree of accuracy. For several years, the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) and other global government agencies have sponsored the development of FCV propulsion systems. A number of
worldwide automotive manufacturers are developing FCV systems with the expectation that limited production quantities will be
offered in the 2013-2015 timeframe. Having a calculation tool that can assess the various elements of vehicle acquisition and
operating costs and compare them among competing technologies is useful to identify those cost elements that contribute the most (or
least) to cost competitiveness and provide insight on where further development efforts can be applied to achieve greater cost
competitiveness.
This paper is a summary of the development by the authors of a more accurate cost-per-mile calculator that allows the user to analyze
vehicle acquisition and operating costs for both consumers and fleets. Two scenarios were chosen for this study: one defines a mature,
market-ready FCV technology and hydrogen fueling infrastructure in 2010; the other examines a “market introduction” case with
FCVs as an emerging technology in the 2013-2015 timeframe with an immature hydrogen fueling infrastructure. Cost-per-mile results
are reported only for consumer-operated vehicles travelling 15,000 miles per year and for fleet vehicles travelling 25,000 miles per
year.
2
METHODOLGY FOR CALCULATING FUTURE VEHICLE ATTRIBUTES
CONVENTIONAL ICE VEHICLE
Original equipment manufacturer (OEM) data beginning with model year 1993 (when available) were obtained for six mid-size class
sedans
1
The vehicle attributes mentioned above were averaged together for each model year. For example, wheelbase data for a 2002
Chevrolet Malibu, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima and Toyota Camry were averaged together to get a generic 2002 mid-size sedan
wheelbase. Again, not all seven models were used in the averaging due to class change or vehicle model availability in that model
year. The process was repeated for each vehicle attribute for model years 1993-2010. The resulting averaged attributes were used to
define a generic mid-size conventional ICE vehicle for each model year. Model years with similar attributes were grouped together,
forming the generic mid-size conventional ICE vehicle generations. Since 1993, this generic mid-size vehicle has gone through four
generations with the attributes listed in Table 1.
: the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Nissan Altima, Saturn Aura, and Toyota Camry. These vehicles were
specifically chosen because each has or had a hybrid electric variant. In addition, manufacturer's data for the Ford Taurus (which was
discontinued in 2006 and subsequently reintroduced in 2008) were also collected to help fill in early 1990s data because vehicles like
the Fusion and Aura are both relatively new models. Selected vehicle attributes, i.e., fuel economy, exterior dimensions and interior
volumes, weight, performance, and pricing (MSRP and invoice), were collected for each of the seven models through model year
2010 [1]. Vehicle design refresh cycles for each model were also analyzed. The available data suggest that OEMs update their
individual vehicle models approximately every five years (or one vehicle generation). Therefore, starting with 2010, a vehicle will
likely be refreshed in 2015, 2020, 2025, and so on. While researching vehicle attributes for the chosen vehicle models, care was taken
to determine if the vehicle class changed during the course of the refresh cycle; when an updated model fell outside of the mid-size
class, the data for those attributes were disregarded. For example, the newest generation of the Honda Accord is classified as a large
car although the Accord was classified as a mid-size vehicle between 1998 and 2007. Therefore, Honda Accord data for model years
2008-2010 and prior to 1998 were not included in determining future vehicle attributes.
Table 1 – Generic Conventional ICE Mid-Size Sedan Past and Current Attributes
GENERATION
1
2
3
4
MODEL YEAR
1993-
1996
1997-
2001
2002-
2007
2008-
2010
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
18
26
21
19
27
22
20
29
24
22
31
25
Range
a
(mi)
City
Highway
Combined
315
457
365
316
455
369
363
516
420
387
544
447
Dimensions &
Capacities
Length (in)
Width (in)
Wheelbase (in)
Curb weight (lb)
Luggage (ft
3
)
Fuel tank (gal)
190.6
70.6
104.9
3052
16.2
17.5
191.1
70.6
106.8
3070
15.3
16.7
190.0
70.7
108.0
3124
15.5
17.7
190.4
71.1
109.9
3307
15.3
17.7
Performance
Horsepower
Acceleration,
0-60 mph (sec)
Drag coefficient
Power-to-weight
134
N/A
N/A
0.0440
144
N/A
0.30
0.0467
162
8.4
0.30
0.0520
168
7.9
0.32
0.0508
Pricing (nominal$)
MSRP
Invoice
N/A
N/A
$16,641
$15,047
$17,623
$16,338
$19,926
$18,748
a
Range is calculated by multiplying fuel economy by fuel tank volume; N/A - not available
1
Mid-size is defined as interior volume greater than or equal to 110 cubic feet but less than 120 cubic feet (Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 40, Section 600.315-08, Classes of comparable automobiles).
3
Generally, the generic conventional ICE mid-size sedan has grown in size and weight through each generation while becoming more
fuel efficient with increasing horsepower.
Two methods were utilized to forecast the generic conventional ICE vehicle's 2015 and 2020 attributes (generations 5 and 6). Method
1 employs the same technique that was used to group the generic mid-size sedan’s attributes. OEM data for each model year (1993-
2010) for the Chevrolet Malibu were grouped together to form vehicle generations. The process was repeated for the Fusion, Altima,
and Camry. (Data for the Taurus and Accord were not utilized for this method because the Taurus was discontinued in 2006 and the
Accord is now classified as a large car). This method could not be applied to the Aura since it has been available for only one
generation. Each individual generational attribute was plotted with a best fit curve for each vehicle, and the curve was used to project
the value of that attribute for the next two vehicle generations. The projected 2015 (generation 5) attributes for the four vehicles were
averaged together in a similar fashion as for each of the generation 1, 2, 3 and 4 attributes in Table 1; the process was repeated for
2020 (generation 6). It should be noted that this process was not applied for vehicle pricing. Both MSRP and invoice price, which
were provided in current dollars for 1993-2010, were converted to 2009 constant dollars using the Consumer Price Index for All
Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for New Cars [2]. MSRP and invoice were plotted in 2009 constant dollars and projected using a best fit
curve to obtain future vehicle pricing.
Method 2 also uses a best fit curve projection to determine generation 5 and 6 attributes. However, the data used in the projection are
that of the generic mid-size vehicle generations as seen in Table 1. MSRP and invoice pricing were forecasted using the same process
as was used in Method 1. Both methods yielded very similar results (see Table 2). Method 1 and Method 2 were then averaged
together, yielding the final 2015 and 2020 conventional ICE vehicle attributes used as default assumptions in the calculation tool.
Again, the general trend is increasing vehicle size and weight with higher fuel efficiency and horsepower.
Table 2 – Generic Conventional ICE Vehicle Future Attributes
GENERATION
5
6
MODEL YEAR
2015
2020
METHOD 1 2 1 2
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
24
33
27
24
33
27
25
35
28
25
35
29
Range (mi)
City
Highway
Combined
421
585
478
419
581
479
448
617
503
457
623
514
Dimensions &
Capacities
Length (in)
Width (in)
Wheelbase (in)
Curb weight (lb)
Luggage (ft
3
)
Fuel tank (gal)
191.0
71.8
109.8
3371
15.7
17.8
190.1
71.7
110.3
3345
15.8
17.8
192.1
72.5
110.5
3482
15.8
17.7
190.0
72.6
110.9
3432
16.5
18.0
Performance
Horsepower
Power-to-weight
187
0.0555
185
0.0553
208
0.0598
200
0.0583
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
Invoice
$22,346
$21,198
$21,891
$21,076
$24,788
$23,672
$24,044
$23,591
The 2015 and 2020 future attributes were compared to those identified in existing literature. Several sources [3-16] were identified
that projected future fuel economy of conventional ICE vehicles as well as some other vehicle attributes, namely range, curb weight,
engine horsepower, power-to-weight ratio, and MSRP. The projections in several of these references reflect expectations that
advanced technologies will be implemented in the vehicle fleet and are expressed as a percent increase over current vehicle fuel
economy. Examples of future technologies include:
• Drag reduction
• Low rolling resistance tires
• Variable compression ratio
• Camless valve actuation
4
• Lean burn gasoline direct injection
• Gasoline homogeneous charge compression ignition dual mode
• Low friction lubricants
• Engine friction reduction
• Advanced continuously variable transmission
Fuel economy forecasts from the present study, as described above, were compared to fuel economy projections in the references.
The forecasts in the cited sources were averaged together for each attribute and compared to the forecasts from this study. A
comparison between the two methods was generally favorable (see Table 3).
Table 3 – Comparison of Projected Conventional ICE Attributes
GENERATION
5
6
MODEL YEAR
2015
2020
SOURCE
This
Study
Ref
b
This
Study
Ref
b
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
24
33
27
24
33
29
25
35
28
27
37
31
Range (mi)
Highway
583
598
620
634
Dimensions &
Capacities
Curb weight (lbs)
3358
3254
3457
3222
Performance
Horsepower
Power-to-weight
186
0.0554
166
0.0502
204
0.0591
167
0.0474
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
$22,119
$21,978
$24,416
$24,538
b
References [3-16]
HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLES
The authors examined two different HEV powertrains: mild and full. A mild HEV can be defined as basically a conventional ICE
vehicle with a motor/generator that allows for engine shut-down in various situations, i.e. braking, coasting, etc. Mild HEVs do not
posses an independent hybrid drivetrain, like the full HEV, and therefore cannot run solely on the electric motor. When compared to
full HEVs, mild HEVs have relatively small electric motors, small battery capacity, and small increases in fuel economy. However,
both mild and full HEVs typically employ regenerative braking and engine assist.
OEM data for 2005-2010 conventional and hybrid electric versions of the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Nissan
Altima, Saturn Aura and Toyota Camry were compiled [1]. As was done with the conventional ICE vehicles, attributes of each HEV
were averaged together to determine generic HEV attributes for each model year. Once the averaging process was complete, the
model years with similar attributes were grouped together to form vehicle generations. It was determined that one mild HEV
generation has existed. Neither Method 1 nor Method 2, which was used for the conventional ICE vehicle, could be used to project
future mild HEV attributes due to the lack of historical generational data. Instead, a new method was utilized that compared the
attributes of each mild HEV (i.e., increases in fuel economy, curb weight, etc.) with those of its conventional ICE counterpart. The
differences in each attribute, including MSRP and invoice pricing, were then forecasted using a best fit curve to project the 2015
(generation 2) and 2020 (generation 3) mild HEV attributes. For MSRP and invoice pricing, these results were used as a check against
prices projected using the same methodology that was used in Method 2 for the conventional ICE vehicle. The forecasted mild HEV
attributes were compared to projections from literature sources. Several sources [7,10,13,17,18] that provided projections of HEV
attributes were identified; the projections were averaged together and used to verify the results of the best fit curve projections. The
comparison between the future mild HEV attributes projected as described above and those of the referenced sources can be seen in
Table 4.
Mild HEVs
5
Table 4 – Comparison of Projected Mild HEV Attributes
GENERATION
2
3
MODEL YEAR
2015
2020
SOURCE
This
Study
Ref
c
This
Study
Ref
c
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
41
33
38
40
34
42
50
35
42
42
36
48
Range (mi)
Highway
721
711
855
775
Dimensions &
Capacities
Curb Weight (lb)
3473
3391
3530
3491
Performance
Horsepower
Power-to-weight
156
0.0448
133
0.0391
158
0.0448
146
0.0417
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
$30,426
$26,190
$34,176
$31,042
c
References [7,10,13,17,18]
The only commercially available mid-size class full HEV is the Toyota Prius, now in its third generation. OEM data beginning with
the Prius's introduction in the United States in 2001 were obtained [1]. Method 1, as explained in the Conventional ICE Vehicle
section above, was utilized to determine the future full HEV attributes. These future attributes were compared to the average
attributes of the references [4,5,7,8,13,14,18-20] from a literature survey. The comparison can be seen in Table 5.
Full HEV
Table 5 – Comparison of Projected Full HEV Attributes
GENERATION
4
5
MODEL YEAR 2015 2020
SOURCE Authors
Ref
d
Authors
Ref
d
Fuel Economy
(mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
54
50
52
50
N/A
54
55
51
54
52
N/A
59
Range (mi)
Highway
637
767
660
837
Dimensions &
Capacities
Curb weight (lb)
3183
3169
3322
3206
Performance
Horsepower
Power-to-weight
113
0.0354
118
0.0355
133
0.0401
129
0.0378
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
$26,755
$27,269
$29,947
$28,369
d
References [4,5,7,8,13,14,18-20]
FUEL CELL VEHICLE
Currently, there is only one commercial mid-size FCV, the Honda FCX Clarity. Although available to the public, this limited
production vehicle is for lease only in three California markets (Torrance, Santa Monica and Irvine), with no option to buy. The $600
per month, three-year lease covers maintenance costs and collision insurance [21]. Although a limited production vehicle, the FCX
Clarity provides a good baseline for mid-size FCV attributes and represents the first generation of FCVs for this study. Since no
historical information exists for mid-size FCVs, published studies and DOE goals/targets were used to envision what the next two
generations of FCV attributes may be.
The authors examined two FCV scenarios. The Target FCV Scenario assumes the FCV is a mature technology in 2010, fully
competitive with conventional ICE vehicles and HEVs and manufactured in production volumes similar to today's rates, achieving all
6
DOE cost goals/targets; the Current FCV Scenario looks at a "market introduction" case with FCVs as an emerging technology
entering the market in 2013 and using today's cost estimates for its subsystems.
To determine MSRP in the Target FCV Scenario, the FCV subsystem costs were calculated relative to a conventional ICE vehicle.
Cost estimates and DOE cost goals were taken from Plotkin et al. [14]. Table 6 and Table 7 list those subsystem components and
accompanying costs for the FCV and conventional ICE vehicle. Intermediate costs for years not provided in Tables 6 and 7 were
obtained by plotting each subsystem with a best fit curve. Fuel cell size and hydrogen storage potential were assumed to be the same
as the Honda FCX Clarity, 100 kW and 3.92 kg H
2
at 350 bar, respectively. The conventional ICE vehicle subsystem costs were then
subtracted from the FCV subsystem costs to obtain the incremental subsystem costs of the FCV. As outlined in Plotkin et al. [14], the
costs in Tables 6 and 7 are manufacturing costs and are not representative of MSRP. Therefore, Plotkin et al. [14] multiplied these
manufacturing costs by 1.5 to obtain the retail price equivalent (RPE). The incremental RPE of the FCV over the conventional ICE
vehicle was obtained by summing the incremental subsystem costs and multiplying by 1.5. This increment was then added to the
conventional ICE vehicle MSRP to obtain the FCV MSRP (see Table 8). The historical percent difference between MSRP and
invoice was compared for the vehicles outlined in the Conventional ICE Vehicle section. Analysis determined that the difference is
slowly decreasing with each vehicle generation, with the invoice price being 95% of MSRP for the 2015 model year and 96% of
MSRP in 2020. FCV invoice pricing was calculated using these percentages of MSRP.
The Current FCV Scenario uses the current manufacturing cost estimates listed in Plotkin et al. [14] to determine FCV MSRP (see
Table 9). A similar analysis to that of the Target FCV Scenario was utilized: the difference in subsystem costs between the FCV and
conventional ICE vehicle was determined. The incremental cost of the FCV was multiplied by 1.5, as used in Plotkin et al. [14] to
obtain the RPE and then added to the conventional ICE vehicle MSRP for 2013. The subsequent years then follow the same declining
MSRP trend as is used in the Annual Energy Outlook [5]. The resulting MSRP agrees favorably with comments by manufacturers
about future FCVs. Toyota expects to price its FCV at $50,000 in 2015; Hyundai-Kia is confident that its price will be lower [22].
Table 6 – FCV Subsystem Costs (2009$)
SCENARIO
Target
Current
YEAR
2010
2015
2020
2010
Fuel cell system
$4,500
$4,500
$3,833
$10,800
Hydrogen storage $521 $263 $263 $1,956
Motor
$1,110
$700
$574
$1,300
Battery
$1,000
$1,000
$910
$2,400
Transmission $100 $100 $100 $100
Electronics
$790
$500
$22
$1,200
Exhaust
$0
$0
$0
$0
Table 7 – Conventional ICE Subsystem Costs (2009$)
YEAR
2010
2015
2020
Engine
$1,700
$1,805
$1,882
Hydrogen storage $0 $0 $0
Motor
$0
$0
$0
Battery
$0
$0
$0
Transmission
$100
$100
$0
Electronics
$0
$0
$0
Exhaust
$400
$400
$400
After a review of literature [14,21,23-25], it was determined that the only other vehicle attribute that could be projected over the next
two generations of FCVs is fuel economy. The average of the projections in the literature is provided in Tables 8 and 9.
Table 8 – Current and Projected FCV Attributes, Target FCV Scenario
SOURCE Ref [21]
Ref
e
Ref
e
GENERATION 1 2 3
MODEL YEAR
2010
2015
2020
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
60
60
60
68
68
68
73
73
73
7
Range (mi)
240
N/A
N/A
Dimensions &
Capacities
Length (in)
Width (in)
Wheelbase (in)
Curb weight (lb)
Luggage (ft
3
)
Fuel tank (kg)
190.3
72.7
110.2
3582
13.1
3.92 @ 350 bar
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Performance
Fuel cell (kW)
100
N/A
N/A
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
$28,917
$30,107
$32,992
e
References [14,23-25]
Table 9 – Current and Projected FCV Attributes, Current FCV Scenario
SOURCE N/A Ref [21]
Ref
f
GENERATION
N/A
1
2
MODEL YEAR 2010 2015 2020
Fuel Economy (mpg)
City
Highway
Combined
N/A
N/A
N/A
60
60
60
68
68
68
Range
(mi) N/A 240 N/A
Dimensions &
Capacities
Length (in)
Width (in)
Wheelbase (in)
Curb weight (lb)
Luggage (ft
3
)
Fuel tank (kg)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
190.3
72.7
110.2
3582
13.1
3.92 @ 350 bar
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Performance
Fuel cell (kW)
N/A
100
N/A
Pricing (2009$)
MSRP
N/A
$43,280
$40,801
f
References [14,23-25]
DIRECT COSTS
OPERATING COSTS
Four gasoline price projection data sets from the Energy Information Administration are included in the cost-per-mile calculation tool.
Two are from the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 [11,26]: the high price case (default for the tool for both the Target FCV Scenario and
the Current FCV Scenario) and the updated reference case, both converted to 2009 dollars. The third and fourth are from the Annual
Energy Outlook 2010 [19,27] which includes a high oil price case and a reference case, both of which are also converted to 2009
dollars. Fuel costs were calculated as follows:
Gasoline
Fuel Cost
20XX
= Fuel Price
20XX
× VMT ÷ MPG
y
(1)
where 20XX denotes the year, VMT is vehicle miles traveled, mpg is the EPA adjusted combined fuel economy in miles per gallon
gasoline equivalent and Y is the vehicle generation.
Future hydrogen prices were determined using projections from the study Transitions to Alternative Transportation: A Focus on
Hydrogen [23]. The hydrogen price projections (in dollars per gasoline gallon equivalent) to the year 2050 from the hydrogen success
case (Case 1) were used as illustrated in Figure 1. The historical CPI-U [28] was used to convert the hydrogen prices to 2009 dollars
Hydrogen
8
and the fuel cost for each specific year was generated from Equation 1. Just as the Target FCV Scenario assumes a fully mature FCV
technology, so does it assume a fully integrated hydrogen fueling station infrastructure. Therefore, the starting point on the hydrogen
price curve presented in the study was shifted to that of 2019 to represent a lower hydrogen cost in 2010 for the Target FCV Scenario
($3.85 in 2009$). In effect, the 2019 price becomes the 2010 price, the 2020 price becomes the 2011 price, and so on for the out years
in the Target FCV Scenario. This price corresponds to the latest H2A forecourt production analysis price of $3.50 in 2005 dollars
($3.83 in 2009 dollars) utilizing steam methane reforming of natural gas [29]. (The H2A production model is an Excel-based tool that
performs a discounted cash flow analysis over a time period based on user inputs and economic assumptions to calculate the cost of
hydrogen.)
Figure 1 – Hydrogen Fuel Prices, Scenarios 1 and 2 [23]
For the consumer portion of the calculation tool, scheduled maintenance information for the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Nissan
Altima, Toyota Camry (conventional ICE and mild HEV), and Toyota Prius (full HEV) was obtained from OEM owner’s manuals and
maintenance guides; the Saturn Aura was excluded since that model was discontinued in 2009. Details such as manufacturer’s
recommended service intervals for each vehicle as well as specific maintenance items performed at those intervals were obtained. The
estimated expense to maintain these mid-size sedans was calculated using the RepairPrice Estimator [30] in 2009 dollars.
Maintenance costs over a five-year period were calculated and included all scheduled maintenance. These costs included an averaged
labor cost (the average of expected labor cost at the dealer and expected labor cost at a private shop) as well as an averaged parts cost
(high and low). Ten cities, including Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, San Francisco,
and Seattle, were used to determine a “national” average. This 10-city average became the baseline for maintenance costs. Future
maintenance costs were estimated using the historical CPI-U for Maintenance and Repairs [31] by fitting a curve to the data and using
the curve to forecast increases in maintenance costs. FCV maintenance costs were adjusted from the conventional ICE vehicle
maintenance costs by the ratios used in the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model [25] for FCVs. Years not provided in
the NEMS inputs were interpolated by using a best fit curve.
Maintenance
For fleet vehicles, Vincentric’s Vinbase Online for Fleets [32] was used to calculate maintenance costs in 2009 dollars. The same
make and model vehicles and the same 10 cities were considered as were used for the consumer vehicles. However, a three-year
ownership period was used instead of the five-year period that was used for consumer ownership. Again, the same projected CPI-U
for Maintenance and Repairs [31] that was used in the consumer portion of the calculation tool was applied to the fleet portion to
project future maintenance costs. Fleet FCV maintenance costs were adjusted from the fleet conventional ICE vehicle maintenance
costs using the NEMS input ratios for FCV maintenance [25].
It was assumed that a set of long-life radial tires would last 60,000 miles prior to needing replacement [33] for a conventional ICE
vehicle. However, a switch to low rolling resistance (LRR) tires will more than likely be necessary to help OEMs meet the new
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards due to be instituted in 2016. These LRR tires typically have a tread wear life of
30,000 to 50,000 miles [34-36]. For the purposes of this study, it was assumed that the average LRR tire would need to be replaced
after 40,000 miles. OEMs already equip mild and full HEVs with LRR tires to help improve vehicle fuel economy; it was assumed
Tires
9
that FCVs would likewise be equipped with LRR tires. The cost to replace one set of tires was estimated with data from the detailed
maintenance information from IntelliChoice’s cost of ownership estimator [37] in 2009 dollars. The average tire replacement cost was
determined for the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry (conventional ICE, mild HEV, and FCV), and
Toyota Prius (full HEV). Future replacement tire costs were estimated using projections developed from the historical CPI-U for
Tires [38]. As was done with the maintenance data, a best fit curve was used with the CPI-U tire data to project future increases for
tire costs.
For the consumer case, the expense to repair a vehicle for an item that is not covered under the manufacturer’s warranty was
calculated using the National Automobile Dealers Association’s (NADA’s) 5-Year Car Cost of Ownership [39] estimator. Repair
costs for the five-year ownership period of a Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry, and Toyota Prius were
investigated. As with the maintenance data, the costs in the same 10 cities were used and averaged together to form a “national”
average. The 10-city average served as the baseline for repair costs. The best fit curve from the historical CPI-U data for
Maintenance and Repairs [31] previously used in the maintenance calculation was again utilized to determine future increases to repair
costs. The authors compared the powertrain components of the Honda FCX Clarity (i.e. powerplant power, battery pack voltage,
motor power) to that of the mild and full HEVs in this study. It was determined that the Honda FCX Clarity’s powertrain components
more closely match the mild HEV than the full HEV. Therefore, it was assumed that the FCV would have similar repair costs to those
of mild HEVs.
Repairs
For fleet vehicles, Vincentric’s Vinbase for Fleets [32] was used to calculate repair costs in 2009 dollars. The same make/model
vehicles and the same 10 cities were considered as were used for the consumer vehicles. However, a three-year ownership period
(typical for fleets) was investigated instead of the five-year period that was used for consumer ownership. Again, the same projected
CPI-U for Maintenance and Repairs [31] that was used in the consumer portion of the calculation tool was applied to the fleet portion
to project future repair costs.
OWNERSHIP COSTS
For consumers of conventional ICE vehicles and mild and full HEVs, the countrywide average for combined (liability,
comprehensive, and collision) auto insurance premiums was estimated using the National Association of Insurance Commissioners
Auto Insurance Databases [40]. The data were then used to develop a best fit curve to project future premium costs. Insurance costs
for the natural gas Honda Civic GX were investigated and compared to those of its conventional Honda Civic EX counterpart. The
percentage increase in insurance premiums from the conventional Honda Civic to the natural gas Civic was then applied to the
conventional ICE vehicle’s insurance premiums (calculated as described above) to estimate the insurance premiums for FCV owners.
Insurance
Fleet vehicle insurance costs were calculated using Vinbase Online for Fleets [32] for the conventional ICE vehicle and both mild and
full HEVs. As was done with the consumer portion of the calculation tool, the percentage increase from the conventional Honda Civic
to the natural gas Civic was applied to the Vincentric data for calculating future FCV insurance costs. Future insurance rates were
projected using the historical CPI-U for Motor Vehicle Insurance [41] because historical data on fleet vehicle insurance costs were not
available.
This expense consists of the yearly registration costs charged by states, titling fees, as well as the state and local sales tax on the
purchase of a vehicle. IntelliChoice’s State Fees Chart [42] was used as the basis to determine a national average for all 50 states.
The chart was updated to account for recent changes to state sales taxes; a calculated combined tax rate was added if both state and
local taxes were levied on the purchase of a new vehicle. The combined tax rate was then averaged together for all 50 states.
Likewise, state titling fees and registration costs were averaged to determine a national average. These taxes and fees were assumed
to be constant through all the ownership periods. Taxes were calculated in the first year of consumer vehicle ownership using the
following equation:
State Registration, Taxes, and Fees
Tax
CONSUMER
= MSRP
20XX
× R (2)
10
Where MSRP is in 2009 dollars, 20XX is the year and R is the average national tax rate. Fleet ownership taxes were calculated in a
similar manner:
Tax
FLEET
= Invoice
20XX
× R (3)
Where Invoice is in 2009 dollars, 20XX is the year and R is the average national tax rate. Fleet pricing is generally calculated as
invoice plus destination charge minus a fleet incentive; the authors have assumed that the destination charge and fleet incentive are
equal.
The consumer portion of the calculation tool contains NADA resale values [39] for the Chevrolet Malibu, Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima,
Toyota Camry, and Toyota Prius. The vehicles' resale values as a percentage of retained MSRP were averaged together (Malibu,
Fusion, Altima, and Camry for conventional ICE vehicle and mild HEV; Prius for full HEV). These resale values assume that the
vehicle is in a clean, reconditioned state when sold. It was assumed that the 2015 and 2020 vehicles would retain the same percentage
of their original MSRP as did the 2010 model year vehicle when sold after five years. The FCV depreciation is calculated using the
difference in depreciation percentage between the conventional Honda Civic and the natural gas Civic. This difference is then applied
to the conventional ICE vehicle depreciation to calculate the FCV depreciation as a percentage of retained MSRP.
Vehicle Depreciation
Depreciation, as a percentage of invoice price, for fleet vehicles (conventional ICE and mild and full HEV) was calculated using the
Vincentric data [32]. Again, the difference between the conventional and natural gas Honda Civic depreciation was applied to the
conventional ICE vehicle Vincentric data to estimate the FCV depreciation. Although FCVs may experience higher rates of
depreciation when first introduced to the market in the 2013-2015 timeframe in the Current FCV Scenario, no data were available to
determine to determine how depreciation rates may vary as function of market maturity. Therefore, the same depreciation rates were
used in both the Target FCV Scenario and the Current FCV Scenario.
The expense of the interest on a consumer vehicle loan was calculated from consumer credit data [43] and bank prime rates [44] from
the Federal Reserve. Historical interest rates for new car loans at auto finance companies were listed as well as average maturity and
loan-to-value ratios. A graph of these historical interest rates versus the historical prime rate was developed using a best fit curve to
determine the relationship between new car loan rates and the prime rate. A prime rate forecast [45] was then obtained and used to
project future new car loan interest rates. The Federal Reserve data [43] indicated that the historical (1993-2009) average new car
loan maturity was 57.52 months with an average loan-to-value ratio of 91.77. Therefore, the average consumer puts down 8.23% on a
new car loan.
Financing
The interest on a fleet vehicle was determined in a similar manner. However, interest rates for 3-month commercial paper [46] were
used instead of interest rates from auto finance companies. A similar relationship between the historical prime rate and the 3-month
commercial paper rate was established. The forecasted prime rate [45] then was used to predict future 3-month commercial paper
rates from the best fit curve. A loan-to-value ratio of 100 was assumed (no money down on the loan).
Section 1341 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58) provides for the Alternative Fuel Motor Vehicle Credit and includes
separate tax credits for four categories of light, medium, and heavy-duty vehicles: hybrids, FCVs, alternative fuel vehicles (dedicated
natural gas and propane), and lean-burn diesel vehicles. The credit amount differs by the type of vehicle and is subtracted directly
from the total amount of federal tax owed. It covers 50% of the incremental cost of the vehicle, plus an additional 30% of the
incremental cost for vehicles meeting super ultra low emissions vehicle (SULEV) and Bin 2 emission standards, and is capped at
$5,000 for vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWRs) of 8,500 lb or less. The cost per mile calculation tool assumes mild
HEVs will qualify for the 50% incremental cost, while full HEVs and FCVs will get the full 80% of the incremental cost covered until
the tax credit expires on December 31, 2010.
Tax Credit
CALCULATING THE COST PER MILE
The cost-per-mile calculation tool described in this paper assumes that the vehicle is kept for five (consumer) or three (fleet) years
[47,48] and then is sold in a clean, reconditioned state. Model years 2015 and 2020 represent new generations of vehicles with the
11
attributes outlined in the Methodology for Calculating Future Vehicle Attributes section. All of the direct costs were calculated in
2009 dollars. However, the calculation tool contains the ability to convert this 2009 dollar amount into any nominal dollar year by
using forecasts for the CPI-U [49,50]. To obtain the total annual cost-per-mile for each vehicle type, all of the operating and
ownership costs for each of the three- or five-year periods were summed and divided by the annual VMT (which was kept constant).
It should be noted that indirect costs were neglected in the calculations of this tool. These may include but are not limited to costs for
compliance with vehicle inspection and maintenance programs, accident repairs, congestion, roadway maintenance/construction,
parking, and tolls.
RESULTS
Cost-per-mile results are reported only for consumer-operated vehicles travelling 15,000 miles per year [51] and for fleet vehicles
travelling 25,000 miles per year [48], though the calculation tool can also be used to assess consumer-operated vehicles travelling
10,000 or 20,000 miles per year and fleet vehicles travelling 20,000 or 30,000 miles per year. Overall results using the tool's default
values for the Target FCV Scenario are shown in Figures A1 and A2 (all figures are included in the Appendix). Both figures show
that FCVs can be competitive with conventional ICE vehicles as well as full HEVs if DOE cost targets are met, even without
federally-mandated tax credits that are applied only in the first ownership period for both consumers (2010-2014) and fleets (2010-
2012) in this analysis. This analysis validates that the DOE targets/goals must be achieved for FCVs to be commercially competitive
with other vehicle powertrains. Detailed results for each powertrain and ownership type are shown in Figures A3-A10. These results
show that FCVs may be more competitive on a cents-per-mile basis than mild HEVs if the DOE targets are achieved. Mild HEVs
cannot compete with the other powertrains in this scenario due to their: 1) high MSRP (large financing expenditures); 2) high
depreciation rate (low residual value); and 3) lower fuel economy relative to full HEVs and FCVs (high fuel costs). Across all
powertrains, depreciation is the largest contributor to direct costs in calculating the cost per mile.
The Current FCV Scenario overall results for consumer and fleet ownership are shown in Figures A11 and A12, respectively. Note
that there are no results for FCVs in the first ownership period for both consumer and fleets as FCVs do not enter the market until
2013 in this scenario. Contrasting with the Target FCV Scenario, the Current FCV Scenario shows that to be competitive with
conventional ICE vehicles and HEVs during the early stages of commercial implementation, FCVs will need tax credits or other forms
of subsidies. The detailed results for the Current FCV Scenario (Figures A13-A20) again show depreciation and financing
expenditures as the major costs for the FCV. High FCV MSRP is likely to be a market barrier at least initially when FCVs are
introduced. However, if the DOE cost targets can be met for all FCV subsystem components, the cost-per-mile differential compared
to other vehicle powertrain technologies will be kept to a minimum.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The authors have created a new cost-per-mile calculator that allows for comparison among several advanced powertrains, including a
conventional ICE vehicle, mild and full HEV, and FCV. This flexible tool contains default data sets for both consumer and fleet
ownership and includes the ability to analyze the cost-per-mile over several ownership periods, which today’s calculators do not
provide. Two scenarios were chosen for analysis: one defines a mature, market-ready FCV technology and hydrogen fueling
infrastructure in 2010; the other examines a “market introduction” case with FCVs as an emerging technology in the 2013-2015
timeframe with an immature hydrogen fueling infrastructure. In both scenarios, the largest contributor to the total cost-per-mile is
vehicle depreciation. If uncertainties in factors such as fuel cell stack durability and hydrogen fuel availability can be eliminated, the
depreciation differential between the FCV and its gasoline counterparts could be reduced.
While Toyota and Hyundai-Kia intend to bring FCVs to the future market, several manufacturers are either producing plug-in HEVs
(PHEVs) or are in the process of readying them for the market. Since PHEVs will be openly competing against the powertrains
presented in this study, the authors intend to add this technology to a future iteration of the cost-per-mile calculator.
REFERENCES
1. Cars.com, “Research,” http://www.cars.com, 2009.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” New Cars, 2009.
3. Committee on Science, “Improving the Nation's Energy Security: Can Cars and Trucks be Made More Fuel Efficient?,” Written
Statement of Mr. K.G. Duleep, 2005.
4. Greene, D. and DeCicco, J., “Engineering-Economic Analysis of Automotive Fuel Economy Potential in the United States,”
ORNL/TM-2000/26, 2000.
12
5. Energy Information Administration, “Supplemental Tables to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030,” Tables
61, 69, 70 and 71, 2009.
6. Transportation Research Board, “Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards,” 2002.
7. DeCicco, J., An, F. & Ross, M., “Technical Options for Improving the Fuel Economy of U.S. Cars and Light Trucks by 2010-
2015,” 2001.
8. Bandivadekar, A. et al., “On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation's Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions,” 2008.
9. Energy Information Administration, “Assumptions to the Annual Energy Outlook 2009,” Table 7.1, DOE/EIA-0554(2009), 2009.
10. Energy Information Administration, “The National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 2009,” DOE/EIA-0581(2009), 2009.
11. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030,” Updated Annual Energy Outlook
2009 Reference Case with ARRA Table 12, Petroleum Product Prices, DOE/EIA-0383(2009), 2009.
12. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011-2015 Passenger Cars and
Light Trucks,” Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2008.
13. Freidman, D., “A New Road: The Technology Potential of Hybrid Vehicles,” 2003.
14. Plotkin, S. et al., “Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study: Vehicle Characterization and Scenario Analyses,” ANL/ESD/09-5,
2009.
15. Environmental Protection Agency, “Interim Report: New Powertrain Technologies and Their Projected Costs,” EPA420-S-05-
013, 2005.
16. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Producer Price Index for Passenger Cars,” 1997-2009, 2009.
17. Duvall, M., “Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options for Compact Sedan and Sport Utility
Vehicles,” 1006892, 2002.
18. Greene, D., Duleep, K.G. & McManus, W., “Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle
Market,” ORNL/TM-2004/181, 2004.
19. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2010,” Reference Case Table 12, Petroleum Product Prices,
DOE/EIA-0383(2010), 2010.
20. Simpson, A., “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Technology,” Conference Paper, NREL/CP-540-40485,
2006.
21. Honda Motor Company, “Honda FCX Clarity - Frequently Asked Questions,” http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/faq.aspx,
2009.
22. Saunders, M., “Hyundai-Kia's Fuel Cell Push,” http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/250265/, 2010.
23. Board on Energy and Environmental Systems, “Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies – A Focus on Hydrogen,”
2008.
24. Energy Information Administration, “The Impact of Increased Use of Hydrogen on Petroleum Consumption and Carbon Dioxide
Emissions,” SR/OIAF-CNEAF/2008-04, 2008.
25. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, “Projected Benefits of Federal Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Programs: FY
2008 Budget Request,” NREL/TP-640-41347 2007.
26. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2009 with Projections to 2030,” High Price Case Tables, Table 12,
DOE/EIA-0383(2009), 2009.
27. Energy Information Administration, “Annual Energy Outlook 2010,” High Oil Price Case Table 12, Petroleum Product Prices,
DOE/EIA-0383(2010), 2010.
28. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” Purchasing power of the consumer dollar (1982-
84=$1.00), 2009.
29. James, B.D., Current (2005) Steam Methane Reformer (SMR) at Forecourt 1500kg/day, Computer Software, Directed
Technologies, Inc., Arlington, VA, 2008.
30. RepairPal, “RepairPrice Estimator,” http://repairpal.com, 2009
31. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” Maintenance and Repairs, 2009.
32. Vincentric, “Vinbase Online for Fleets,” http://www.vincentric.com, 2009
33. T
ire Rack, “Tire Tech Information/General Tire Information,” Tire Aging - Part #1, http://www.tirerack.com/tires, 2009.
34. Green Seal, “Choose Green Report: Low Rolling Resistance Tires,” 2003.
35. New Mexico Climate Change Advisory Group, “Low Rolling Resistance Tires,” Teleconference Call #9 of TLU TWG,
http://www.nmclimatechange.us/template.cfm?FrontID=4701, 2006.
36. Practical Environmentalist, “Boost Gas Mileage with LRR Tires,” http://www.practicalenvironmentalist.com/travel/how-to-
improve-your-gas-mileage-with-low-rolling-resistance-tires.htm, 2009.
37. IntelliChoice, “Cost of Ownership,” Detailed Maintenance Information, http://www.intellichoice.com, 2009.
38. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” Tires, 2009.
39. NADA, “5-Year Car Cost of Ownership,” http://www.nadaguides.com, 2009.
40. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, “Auto Insurance Database,” 2009.
41. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers,” Motor Vehicle Insurance, 2009.
42. IntelliChoice, “Cost of Ownership,” State Fees Chart, http://www.intellichoice.com, 2009.
13
43. Federal Reserve, “Consumer Credit,” Terms of Credit at Commercial Banks and Finance Companies,
http://www.federalreserve.gov, 2009.
44. Federal Reserve, “Selected Interest Rates,” Bank Prime Loan,” http://www.federalreserve.gov, 2009.
45. Mortgage-X, “Prime Rate Forecast,” http://mortgage-x.com, 2009.
46. Federal Reserve “Selected Interest Rates,” Commercial Paper, Nonfinancial 3-month, http://www.federalreserve.gov, 2009.
47. R.L. Polk and Company, “The Changing U.S. Auto Industry - Consumer Sentiment During Challenging Times,” 2009
48. Automotive Fleet, “2010 Automotive Fleet Fact Book Stats, Operating Costs, Intermediate Cars,” 2009.
49. Congressional Budget Office, “The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020,” 2010.
50. Office of Management and Budget, “Mid-Session Review: Budget of the U.S. Government,” 2009.
51. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Our Nation’s Highways: 2010,” 2010.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Alliance Technical Services, Inc.
10816 Town Center Blvd., Suite 232
Dunkirk, MD 20754
www.alliance-technicalservices.com
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) for the opportunity to perform this analysis under
NREL subcontract no. LCI-8-88606-01.
DEFINITIONS/ABBREVIATIONS
BLS
Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CPI-U
Consumer Price Index, All Urban
DOE
Department of Energy
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
FCV
fuel cell vehicle
GVWR
gross vehicle weight restriction
H2A
Hydrogen Analysis
HEV
hybrid electric vehicle
ICE
internal combustion engine
kg
kilogram(s)
kW
kilowatt(s)
kWh
kilowatt-hour(s)
lb
pound(s)
LRR
low rolling resistance
mpg
miles per gallon
MSRP
manufacture’s suggested retail
OEM
original equipment manufacturer
NADA
National Automobile Dealers
RPE
retail price equivalent
SULEV
super ultra low emissions vehicle
VMT
vehicle miles traveled
14
APPENDIX
Consumer Results
$0.49
$0.59
$0.64
$0.50
$0.66
$0.73
$0.42
$0.56
$0.63
$0.45
$0.57
$0.63
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
ICE Mild HEV Full HEV FCV
15,000
VMT
Figure A1 – Target FCV Scenario Overall Results for Consumer-Owned Vehicles
Fleet Results
$0.43
$0.51
$0.55
$0.60
$0.63
$0.43
$0.56
$0.60
$0.65
$0.69
$0.37
$0.47
$0.51
$0.56
$0.59
$0.38
$0.48
$0.51
$0.55
$0.59
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
ICE Mild HEV Full HEV FCV
25,000
VMT
Figure A2 – Target FCV Scenario Overall Results for Fleet-Owned Vehicles
15
Consumer Conventional ICE Vehicle
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.49
$0.59
$0.64
Figure A3 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Consumer Owned-Conventional ICE Vehicle
Consumer Mild HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.50
$0.66
$0.73
Figure A4 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Consumer-Owned Mild HEV
16
Consumer Full HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.42
$0.56
$0.63
Figure A5 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Consumer-Owned Full HEV
Consumer FCV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.45
$0.57
$0.63
Figure A6 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Consumer-Owned FCV
17
Fleet Conventional ICE Vehicle
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.43
$0.51
$0.55
$0.60
$0.63
Figure A7 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Fleet-Owned Conventional ICE Vehicle
Fleet Mild HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.43
$0.56
$0.60
$0.65
$0.69
Figure A8 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Fleet-Owned Mild HEV
18
Fleet Full HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.37
$0.47
$0.51
$0.56
$0.59
Figure A9 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Fleet-Owned Full HEV
Fleet FCV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.38
$0.48
$0.51
$0.55
$0.59
Figure A10 – Target FCV Scenario Detailed Results for a Fleet-Owned FCV
19
Consumer Results
$0.49
$0.59
$0.64
$0.50
$0.66
$0.73
$0.42
$0.56
$0.63
$0.77
$0.73
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
ICE Mild HEV
Full HEV
FCV
15,000
VMT
Figure A11 – Current FCV Scenario Overall Results for Consumer-Owned Vehicles
Fleet Results
$0.43
$0.51
$0.55
$0.60
$0.63
$0.43
$0.56
$0.60
$0.65
$0.69
$0.37
$0.47
$0.51
$0.56
$0.59
$0.75
$0.67
$0.65
$0.67
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
ICE Mild HEV Full HEV FCV
25,000
VMT
Figure A12 – Current FCV Scenario Overall Results for Fleet-Owned Vehicles
20
Consumer Conventional ICE Vehicle
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.49
$0.59
$0.64
Figure A13 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Consumer Owned-Conventional ICE Vehicle
Consumer Mild HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.50
$0.66
$0.73
Figure A14 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Consumer-Owned Mild HEV
21
Consumer Full HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.42
$0.56
$0.63
Figure A15 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Consumer-Owned Full HEV
Consumer FCV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2014 2015-2019 2020-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
15,000
VMT
$0.77
$0.73
Figure A16 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Consumer-Owned FCV
22
Fleet Conventional ICE Vehicle
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.43
$0.51
$0.55
$0.60
$0.63
Figure A17 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Fleet-Owned Conventional ICE Vehicle
Fleet Mild HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.43
$0.56
$0.60
$0.65
$0.69
Figure A18 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Fleet-Owned Mild HEV
23
Fleet Full HEV
($0.20)
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.37
$0.47
$0.51
$0.56
$0.59
Figure A19 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Fleet-Owned Full HEV
Fleet FCV
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
2010-2012 2013-2015 2016-2018 2019-2021 2022-2024
Ownership Period
Total Cost Per Mile (2009$)
Tax credit
Financing
Depreciation
Registration, taxes & fees
Insurance
Repairs
Tires
Maintenance
Fuel
25,000
VMT
$0.75
$0.67
$0.65
$0.67
Figure A20 – Current FCV Scenario Detailed Results for Fleet-Owned FCV
F1147-E(10/2008)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regardin
g this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-
0188). Respondents
should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a
currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
January 2011
2. REPORT TYPE
Conference Paper
3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Methodology for Calculating Cost per Mile for Current and Future
Vehicle Powertrain Technologies, with Projections to 2024: Preprint
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
DE-AC36-08GO28308
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
M. Ruth, T.A. Timbario, T.J. Timbario, and M. Laffen
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
NREL/CP-6A10-49231
5e. TASK NUMBER
HS07.1002
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
1617 Cole Blvd.
Golden, CO 80401-3393
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
NREL/CP-6A10-49231
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
NREL
11. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)
Currently, several cost-per-mile calculators exist that can provide estimates of acquisition and operating costs for
consumers and fleets. However, these calculators are limited in their ability to determine the difference in cost per
mile for consumer versus fleet ownership, to calculat
e the costs beyond one ownership period, to show the sensitivity
of the cost per mile to the annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and to estimate future increases in operating and
ownership costs. Oftentimes, these tools apply a constant percentage increase over the time period of vehicle
operation, or in some cases, no increase in direct costs at all over time. A more accurate cost-per-
mile calculator has
been developed that allows the user to analyze these costs for both consumers and fleets. The calculator was
developed to allow simultaneous comparisons of conventional light-duty internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles,
mild and full hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). This paper is a summary of the
development by the authors of a more accurate cost-per-mile calculator that allows the user to analyze vehicle
acquisition and operating costs for both consumer and fleets. Cost-per-mile results are reported for consumer-
operated vehicles travelling 15,000 miles per year and for fleets travelling 25,000 miles per year.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
Cost-per-mile; Cost-per-mile calculator; Vehicle Powertrain Technologies; hybrid electric vehicles; HEV; fuel cell
vehicles; FCV; internal combustion engine vehicle; ICE; vehicle fleet
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
UL
18. NUMBER
OF PAGES
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT
Unclassified
b. ABSTRACT
Unclassified
c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
