The calculation of the per-mile fuel cost for FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEVs in the first release of this report (Section 9) mistakenly used an older estimate of fuel economy for this vehicle technology. This error also affected the subsequent calculation of the cost of avoided carbon emissions in Section 10 for FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEVs. The on-road fuel economy for FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEV used in the first release of this report was 48.2 mi/gge, whereas the fuel economy from Autonomie simulations for this vehicle technology (see Section 6) was 53.5 mi/gge. Using the 53.5 mi/gge fuel economy for FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEV in the calculation of per-mile fuel cost of FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEVs resulted in updates to the following figures and tables of the report: Figures ES-3 and ES-5 in the Executive Summary; Figures 23, 25, and 27 in Section 9; Figures 34 and 36, and Tables 55 and 56 in Section 10; and Figures F.2 and F.4 (as well as the repeated Figures 23 and 34) in Appendix F. It is noted that the GHG emissions calculations in the first release of the report correctly used the 53.5 mi/gge for FUTURE TECHNOLOGY HEV. Thus no changes are made to the GHG emissions charts in the report.

This report estimates ranges of potential effects of connected and automated vehicle (CAV) technologies on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), vehicle fuel efficiency, and costs to consumers. Analysis combining the VMT and efficiency effects under assumed high CAV market penetration produces national-level impact ranges for fuel use and, by extension, greenhouse gas emissions, since fuel switching (i.e., from gasoline to alternative fuels) is not considered. The analysis of CAV costs to consumers draws upon the potential changes to VMT and vehicle efficiency, plus available data and assumptions on CAV technology cost projections. Figure ES-1 illustrates the overall structure of the analysis to determine ranges of potential CAV effects on VMT and vehicle efficiency, and combine these to evaluate impact ranges for national light-duty vehicle (LDV) fuel use and for CAV technology costs to consumers. Figure ES-1. Visualization of the analysis process for the report The travel demand and efficiency impact range estimates draw upon results from previous studies that evaluated various CAV technology effects on conventional vehicle operation. The VMT impact calculations include vehicle occupancy assumptions to translate between person miles traveled (PMT) and VMT. The efficiency calculations rely on literature-reported values for different CAV feature impacts on fuel consumption rates (e.g., due to vehicle-to-infrastructure communication / coordination, vehicle platooning, etc.), and also include a first-order disaggregation of each feature's impact in different driving situations (i.e., city vs. highway driving and travel at peak vs. off-peak times). The relative impacts are then weighted by the amount of driving that takes place in those different situations. The analysis combines the ranges of CAV technology effects on VMT and fuel consumption rates over the total U.S. LDV stock. These calculations produce lower-and upper-bound estimates of potential total U.S. LDV fuel use (and greenhouse gas emission) impacts for three CAV scenarios relative to a present-day base scenario. The present-day base scenario represents fuel use by the current U.S. on-road light-duty vehicle fleet, consisting of essentially all vi

Erratum to accompany "Comprehensive Total Cost of Ownership Quantification for Vehicles with Different Size Classes and Powertrains" (Argonne National Laboratory report ANL/ESD-21/4) July 2021After initial publication of this report, the authors were made aware of some minor typographical errors and omissions. As these mistakes can potentially confuse the results, they have been corrected in the present version. In the executive summary on page xxiii, "HEV" (hybrid electric vehicle) was once written as "BEV" (battery electric vehicle), contrary to the findings shown in the accompanying figure. Tables B.5 and B.6 previously stated the incorrect all-electric ranges for the battery electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle for the class 8 day cab tractor and class 4 delivery truck, respectively. These ranges have been corrected. Additionally, two sentences were added to Appendix B on page 143 to explicitly state the correctly modeled all-electric range for all medium-and heavy-duty vehicles.

This article presents a cradle-to-grave (C2G) assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and costs for current (2015) and future (2025-2030) light-duty vehicles. The analysis addressed both fuel cycle and vehicle manufacturing cycle for the following vehicle types: gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flex fuel vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Gasoline ICEVs using current technology have C2G emissions of ∼450 gCOe/mi (grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per mile), while C2G emissions from HEVs, PHEVs, H FCEVs, and BEVs range from 300-350 gCOe/mi. Future vehicle efficiency gains are expected to reduce emissions to ∼350 gCO/mi for ICEVs and ∼250 gCO/mi for HEVs, PHEVs, FCEVs, and BEVs. Utilizing low-carbon fuel pathways yields GHG reductions more than double those achieved by vehicle efficiency gains alone. Levelized costs of driving (LCDs) are in the range $0.25-$1.00/mi depending on time frame and vehicle-fuel technology. In all cases, vehicle cost represents the major (60-90%) contribution to LCDs. Currently, HEV and PHEV petroleum-fueled vehicles provide the most attractive cost in terms of avoided carbon emissions, although they offer lower potential GHG reductions. The ranges of LCD and cost of avoided carbon are narrower for the future technology pathways, reflecting the expected economic competitiveness of these alternative vehicles and fuels.

Annual PEV sales by battery cell manufacturer. "Others" includes Li-tec, GS Yuasa, Toshiba, Blue Energy, and A123. .