Public Policy, Industrial Innovation, and the Zero-Emission Vehicle

Regulating environmental outcomes without stipulating the technologies to accomplish them is a characteristically American form of governmental intervention. This approach aims to encourage industry to address public-policy concerns while minimizing interference in its affairs. However, California's zero-emission-vehicle mandate of 1990 implied the development of specific technologies with highly disruptive sociotechnical effects. The most practical zero-emission vehicle of the day was the all-battery electric vehicle, a technology characterized by the temporal mismatch of its components. Batteries have shorter life-spans than electric motors, a durability dilemma that rewards battery-making. In response, General Motors and Toyota devised strategies to mitigate this risk that involved mediating the technology of the Ovonic Battery Company.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Zero-Emission Vehicle Deployment Strategies: The Maryland Case

This study aimed to develop a model to estimate the impacts of zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) adoption on CO2 emissions and to evaluate efficacy of ZEV deployment strategies in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction goals. We proposed a modeling scheme to represent ZEVs in four-step trip-based travel demand models. We then tested six ZEV scenarios that were a cross-combination of three ZEV ownership levels and two ZEV operating cost levels. The proposed modeling scheme and scenarios were implemented on the Maryland Statewide Transportation Model (MSTM) to analyze the impacts of different ZEV ownership and cost combinations on travel patterns and on CO2 emissions. The main findings were the following: (1) A high-ZEV ownership scenario (43.14% of households with ZEVs) could achieve about a 16% reduction in statewide carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2Eq) emissions from 2015 base year levels; and (2) CO2Eq emissions at a future year baseline (2030) (the Constrained Long-Range Plan) level dropped by approximately 11% in low-ZEV ownership scenarios, 17% in medium-ZEV ownership scenarios, and 32% in high-ZEV ownership scenarios. The high-ZEV ownership results also indicated a more balanced distribution of emissions per unit area or per vehicle mile traveled among different counties.