Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DCFC”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

DCFC + Hydrogen Station Design Optimization [Slides]

Both direct current fast charging (DCFC) and Hydrogen stations are working to create successful long-term business models; however, analyses for DCFC and hydrogen fueling infrastructure are almost always performed separately. This work provides a detailed exploration of the benefit of integrating DCFC and hydrogen stations to lower the total system cost from load balancing and equipment cost sharing. To achieve this we have adapted the REopt optimization framework to simultaneously optimize the design and operation of integrated DCFC and H2 fueling station. Results indicate that 1) combining hydrogen fueling and DCFC stations can significantly reduce lifetime costs compared to separated stations. 2) Co-location with additional site load reduces DCFC costs, however, integration of DCFC with hydrogen provides an even greater cost reduction. 3) Adding PV to combined stations further reduces the lifetime station cost. 4) Capital investments in station combination today can help reduce the cost of operating DCFC tomorrow and 5) product diversification acts as a hedge against variability and enables a more dynamic response to market changes.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Technology & Design Innovations to Maximize the Reduction Effect on DCFC Unit Cost Economics (Max‐REDUCE)

With the high cost and reliability issues of DCFC infrastructure the project specifically addressed the needs of innovating on the AC to DC power conversion. We proved the integration of a new power module into existing charger units, and that theoretical educational work on single stage energy conversion is commercially viable, and a reduced cost compared to existing methods. Our A sample shown 3 PH 480VAC 60hz to 350VDC 8.5kW power transfer, and our software and simulation proved efficiency greater than 97% from 20kW to > 60kW, over the DC output voltage range 200 – 1200V. The project was stopped before we could implement B sample and execute full power testing, validation and integration into a demonstration charger (budget period 3).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Estimating Fast Charging Infrastructure Requirements to Fully Electrify Ride-Hailing Fleets Across the United States

Ride-hailing electrification is made challenging by a variety of factors, including limited driver access to overnight charging and a nascent network of public direct-current fast charging (DCFC). This article projects the DCFC infrastructure needed to electrify ride-hailing across 384 cities in the United States. Research leveraging a novel infrastructure projection tool, Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Tool for On-Demand Mobility Services model (EVI-OnDemand), estimates that 25,400 DCFC ports capable of charging vehicles at a mean power of 150 kW are required to electrify 1.45 million ride-hailing vehicles in the baseline scenario. Results show that ride-hailing vehicles require 17.5 DCFC ports per 1000 vehicles, three times that of personal electric vehicles (EVs). Infrastructure demand is also shown to vary across cities; 63% more DCFC ports are needed to support 1000 battery EVs in Chicago versus Miami. The analysis also includes sensitivity studies that explore variation in charging demand across input assumptions, finding that charging power, vehicle class, overnight charging access rates, and port utilization influence the network size needed. Projections vary from 18,600 to 41,300 DCFC ports across sensitivity scenarios, indicating that ride-hailing electrification will require significant expansion of access to fast charging even in the most optimistic scenarios, and investments into supporting assets can reduce the scale of the public charging expansion needed.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Economics of electric vehicle corridor fast charging in the United States

Corridor direct-current fast charging (DCFC) stations enable long-distance electric vehicle travel, yet their economics remain uncertain due to high capital costs, low initial utilization, and exposure to utility demand charges. This study evaluates the long-term economics of corridor DCFC across the United States, incorporating capital and operating expenses-including charging equipment and real-world utility tariffs-alongside modeled station utilization, financial incentives, and ancillary retail revenue. In the Baseline scenario, modeled breakeven costs for corridor DCFC average $\$$0.42/kWh over 20 years, yet fewer than half of stations reach cost parity with gasoline on a per-mile basis. Utilization is the primary driver of cost variation, with low-utilization stations costing roughly six times more per kilowatt-hour than the national average. Excluding stations that fail to reach cost parity reduces National Highway System coverage within 50 miles from 94% to 67%, underscoring the trade-off between market-driven deployment and comprehensive network coverage. These results provide guidance for charging providers, utilities, planners, and policymakers seeking to develop and sustain a financially viable national corridor charging network.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Public electric vehicle charging station utilization in the United States

The utilization of electric vehicle (EV) charging equipment is a key driver of charging station economics, but current trends and factors related to the utilization of public charging infrastructure in the United States are not well understood. This study analyzes EV charging data from 3,705 nationwide public Level 2 (L2) and direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations over 2.5 years (2019-2022), observing utilization patterns over time. Regression analysis is used to assess the relationships between station utilization and several contextual and environmental factors. We conclude that local EV adoption is a strong indicator of utilization; L2 station utilization decreases with the size of the local charging network, while DCFC stations are less affected; and increased charging power has a greater effect on utilization for DCFC stations than L2. This study fills a critical research gap by reporting updated public charging station utilization statistics and analysis for the U.S. market.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Home charging for all: Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of multi-unit dwelling electric vehicle charging hubs

Ubiquitous electric vehicle adoption can drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) but will require equitable home charging infrastructure for all residences. Unlike single-family homes, Multi-Unit Dwellings (MUD) currently lack market share and access to nearby charging infrastructure partly due to expensive capital costs for reluctant residential property-owners. Further, this work evaluates the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) for Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) at MUD community charging hubs through a techno-economic analysis (TEA) that leverages real-world charging data and costs. Three different MUD charging types are investigated for a baseline and optimistic case: 1.9-kW Level 1 (L1), 6.6-kW Level 2 (L2), and 50-kW Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) stations under three different ownership models: resident, utility, and private company. Results demonstrate L1 and L2 chargers to be less expensive than the gasoline equivalent across the United States. Further, utility and private company ownership models, which avoid initial costs for residential property owners, result in a large LCOC premium for L1 and moderate LCOC premium for L2 relative to the resident ownership model. In contrast, DCFC is shown to be expensive for baseline scenarios but economical for optimistic scenarios especially under private company ownership. This work also performs a cradle to grave (C2G) life cycle assessment (LCA) of an average passenger BEV and gasoline conventional vehicle (CV) using yearly (grid mix & vehicle parameters), hourly (grid mix), and state-level (grid mix) resolution. Results show BEVs to have lower GHG emissions (-86% to-10%) than gasoline CVs in the contiguous U.S. Next, the system boundary of the TEA is extended to the total cost of ownership (TCO) of BEVs. The TCO is then coupled with the C2G GHG emissions to calculate the cost of GHG emissions reduction. Ultimately, the cost of GHG emissions reduction from MUD BEVs relative to gasoline CVs is shown to be negative for every scenario except baseline DCFC, meaning MUD BEV charging infrastructure can be a cost-effective endeavor to reduce GHG emissions.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Siting and sizing of public–private charging stations impacts on household and electric vehicle fleets

To facilitate the provision of electric vehicle charging stations (EVCS) in urban areas, this study investigates the benefits of co-locating fleet-owned chargers with public charging stations to enable construction incentives and cord-sharing cost savings. Shared EVCS can serve charging demand from both user types: private (household) EV owners and those managing fleet vehicles – like shared and fully automated EV (SAEV) fleets. Using POLARIS to simulate all person-travel across the 6-county Austin, Texas region, new EVCS were sited and sized with DC fast-charging (DCFC) plugs to lower operating and construction costs while providing public + private (PP) service across an 81-square-mile core geofence (where 200 SAEVs were active) over 24-hour days. When co-location is permitted, 115 DCFC cords were added to the 23 existing (publicly available) stations to enable SAEVs and household EVs (HHEVs) charging access, within the geofence. Each 250-mile-range SAEV was simulated to travel an average of 330 miles per day, serve over 92 person-trips, and recharge 2.7 times a day (for 2.4 h per session). The new DCFC plugs were primarily added to public EVCS at shopping centers and schools, and in residential settings along freeways. The average plug served 4.8 EVs per day. Most co-located PP EVCS permitted immediate (no-wait) charging, except for 2 stations along freeways that averaged 8 min of wait time to begin charging. In conclusion, the co-location strategy lowered fleet owners’ initial EVCS construction costs by 12 % (thanks to cord-sharing to avoid cord duplication), while reducing SAEV wait times to just 3.1 min (versus 10.7 min if SAEV managers had to build and operate their own EVCS).

EV charging modeling↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reliability of Open Public Electric Vehicle Direct Current Fast Chargers

The aim was to systematically evaluate the usability of all public electric vehicles (EV) direct current fast chargers (DCFC) in the San Francisco region. To achieve a rapid transition to EVs, a highly reliable and easy to use charging infrastructure is critical to building confidence among consumers. The functionality and usability of all 182 open, public DCFC charging stations with CCS connectors (combined charging system) in the 9 counties of the Bay Area were tested (655 electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) ports). An EVSE was classified as functional if it charged an EV for 2 minutes. Overall, 73.3% of the 655 EVSEs were functional. The causes of the nonfunctioning EVSEs (23.5%) were blank or unresponsive screens or error messages; payment system failures; charge initiation failures; network failures; or broken connectors. In addition, the cable was too short to reach the EV inlet for 3.2% of the EVSEs. A random sampling of 10% of the EVSEs, approximately 8 days after the first evaluation, found no overall change in functionality. The level of functionality found with field testing conflicts with the 95–98% uptime reported by the EV service providers (EVSPs) who operate the EV charging stations. There is a need for precise and verifiable definitions of uptime, downtime, and excluded time, as applied to public EV chargers. In conclusion, the level of failure of the existing public EV DCFC charge infrastructure highlights the importance of improving the system design and maintenance to improve adoption of EVs.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Assessment of Economic Viability of Direct Current Fast Charging Infrastructure Investments for Electric Vehicles in the United States

As the global transportation sector increasingly adopts electric vehicles, the demand for advanced and accessible charging infrastructure is rising. In addition to at-home electric vehicle (EV) charging, there is a growing need for the swift development of commercial direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations to meet on-the-go EV charging demands. While government funds are available to support the expansion of the EV charging network in the United States, the establishment of a robust nationwide EV charging infrastructure requires significant private sector investment. This study was conducted to assess the economic feasibility of various business models for fast charging stations in the U.S. using two case studies and exploring different operational strategies including sole ownership and collaborative ventures with public and private entities. The results indicate that based on the current adoption and utilization rates in the U.S., the business model involving an owner-operator collaborating with a public partner ensures profitability and protects the investment in DCFC stations from financial losses. The study also highlights that demand charges and electricity retail prices are the factors that affect the profitability of a DCFC station.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

ELECTRIFICATION OF A HEAVY-DUTY OFF-ROAD MATERIAL HANDLER: ENERGY SAVINGS AND EMISSION REDUCTIONS

Federal regulations are driving the adoption of electrification technologies to reduce carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emissions, a metric that quantifies the global warming potential of various greenhouse gases in terms of carbon dioxide (CO2). Although no specific CO2 regulations exist for heavy-duty off-road machines, future reductions are likely, given stricter emissions standards for on-road vehicles. The heavy-duty off-road sector offers significant fuel-saving potential, as its focus has traditionally been on reliability and performance rather than fuel efficiency. This dissertation examines fuel and CO2e savings opportunities on a heavy-duty off-road material handler, the Pettibone Cary-Lift 204i, from stock configuration to simple modifications to a complete teardown and reconfiguration of the machine with a plug-in series hybrid architecture using electrified hydraulics. The study begins by modeling the baseline machine’s fuel and energy consumption, calibrating with experimental data from custom operating cycles. An energy analysis identifies key areas for fuel savings. Two simple powertrain modifications result in a combined 16.2% fuel savings. Next, a Pugh-style analysis narrows a list of electrified architectures, leading to high-fidelity models that evaluate total lifetime CO2e and costs. Higher electrification levels reduce CO2e emissions but increase costs, and electricity grid emissions significantly impact CO2e for plug-in architectures. A plug-in series hybrid is chosen for the project. In its base control form, 49% fuel and 29% CO2e savings are expected from the plug-in series hybrid compared to the baseline machine. Further savings are pursued through regenerative braking (6.3%) and load-following hydraulic control (17.8%), totaling 24.1% fuel savings, and leading to a total of 61% fuel and 41% CO2e savings compared to the baseline. Battery chemistries and charging strategies are also analyzed for cost and CO2e impacts, finding LFP batteries as superior due to longevity, and overnight level 2 charging usually at a lower cost but resulting in higher emissions than opportunity DC fast-charging (DCFC). DCFC emissions are highly dependent on grid emissions, and DCFC cost is highly dependent on grid demand charges. Finally, artificial intelligence is applied to operating cycle recognition. Neural network accuracy ranges from 81% to 99%, with applications to worksite efficiency and safety improvements.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Refining Control, Charging, and Battery Chemistry for CO 2 e Savings in Heavy-Duty Off-Road Plug-In Series Hybrid

With current and future regulations continuing to drive reductions in carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions in the on-road industry, the off-road industry is also likely to be regulated for fuel and CO 2 e savings. This work focuses on converting a heavy-duty off-road material handler from a conventional diesel powertrain to a plug-in series hybrid, achieving a 49% fuel reduction and 29% CO 2 e reduction via simulation. Control strategies were refined for energy savings, including a regenerative braking strategy to increase regenerative braking and a load-following hydraulic strategy to decrease electrical energy consumption. The load-following hydraulic control shuts off the hydraulic electric machine when it is not needed—an approach not previously seen in a load-sensing, pressure-compensated system. Furthermore, these strategies achieved a 24.1% fuel savings, resulting in total savings of 61% in fuel and 41% in CO 2 e in the plug-in series compared to the conventional machine. Beyond control strategies, this study evaluated battery chemistry and charging strategy refinements for total cost of ownership (TCO) and lifetime CO 2 e. LFP batteries emerged as the most cost-effective and least emitting due to their longer lifespan, which reduced replacement frequency. Charging comparisons showed that Level 2 charging (L2C) typically resulted in lower TCO but higher lifetime CO 2 e than DC fast charging (DCFC). DCFC costs were heavily influenced by local demand charges, and DCFC emissions were heavily influenced by local grid emissions.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

High-Efficiency, Medium-Voltage-Input, Solid-State-Transformer-Based 400-kW/1000V/400A Extreme Fast Charger for Electric Vehicles

Range anxiety and long battery charging time continue to be critical challenges to mass adaptation of EVs. A major identified gap to wider adoption of BEVs is the ability and availability to refuel quickly or to fast charge. Studies have shown that in areas where drivers have access to 50-kW or 120-kW fast charge stations, annual electric vehicle (EV) miles traveled (i.e., eVMT) increased by over 25%, even in cases where fast charging was used for 1% to 5% of total charging events. Charge stations of higher power not only alleviate the “range anxiety” and reduce the driver’s waiting time, but also requires less investment. Michigan Energy Office completed a study in early 2019 titled “Electric Vehicle Charger Placement Optimization in Michigan: Phase I – Highways”. This study finds a system with 150kW chargers, though more expensive individually, actually has lower total system cost when compared to a 50kW charging system when serving the same battery size EV. To be truly competitive to the ICEV refueling experience, even higher power stations are necessary. However, high power charge stations would create large power draws from the grid. If this occurs during peak demand periods, grid capacity could be overloaded. This problem needs to be addressed to reduce the impact on the electric utility infrastructure. The main goal of this project is to develop a 400-kW/400-A XFC system targeting total efficiency of 96.5 percent from the MVAC grid to a vehicle. The novel SST power cell topology, combined with a new silicon carbide (SiC) MOSFET device, enables a 3.5 percent improvement in system efficiency, a 50-percent smaller equipment footprint, and four times less weight than today’s DCFC systems. The SST technology would directly utilize MVAC at 4.8-kV or 13.2-kV. This would eliminate the line frequency transformer (LFT), which steps down medium-voltage AC to 3-Phase 480-V line-to-line voltage in current DCFC systems.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles

This data set includes the levelized cost of charging (LCOC) and lifetime fuel cost savings (LFCS) values as reported in "Levelized Cost of Charging of Electric Vehicles in the United States." Values are reported at the state and national levels for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The data set also includes the four annual direct current fast charging (DCFC) station load profiles used to approximate the levelized cost of DCFC charging. Each profile provides 15-min resolved power requirements for one full year. Borlaug, B., Salisbury, S., Gerdes, M., and Muratori, M., Levelized Cost of Charging Electric Vehicles in the United States, Joule (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2020.05.013.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

In-route inductive versus stationary conductive charging for shared automated electric vehicles: A university shuttle service

In-route inductive charging technology, as applied to automated electric vehicles, can help realize a fully automated system of both vehicles and chargers. This study presents a planning optimization analysis for fixed-route automated shuttles supported by in-route inductive charging technology. A techno-economic feasibility of inductive charging was assessed in comparison with stationary charging, including Level 2 AC chargers, and DC fast chargers (DCFCs). This analysis considered both present-day and future vehicle operations and overall system costs. A real project with two circulator Navya Arma shared automated electric vehicles (SAEVs) at the University of Michigan was investigated using real-world collected energy and travel data. The outcomes show that the proper design of quasi-dynamic inductive chargers at designated stops allows SAEVs to realize unlimited driving range and be cost-competitive to DCFC technology. Considering present-day costs and vehicles, low-speed SAEVs can realize charge-sustaining operation at a minimum cost either by implementing a 50-kW inductive charger at two stops with one segment per position and a 29-kWh onboard battery, or by installing a 100-kW inductive charger at one stop with one segment per position and a 28-kWh onboard battery. Overall, considering future costs and vehicles, either a 40-kW charger at one stop with a 29-kWh battery or a 50-kW charger at the north stop with a 14-kWh battery would enable charge-sustaining operation. In addition, quasi-dynamic inductive solution can reduce the onboard battery by about 15% while providing unlimited driving range, but stationary scenarios require about 112% additional battery capacity to support a 12-h driving range.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

HIVE™ [SWR-19-36]

The HIVE™ platform is a mobility services simulation platform developed to provide insight on the energy, infrastructure, service, and economic outcomes of various mobility as a service (MaaS) options. The HIVE platform takes a set of spatiotemporal travel origin-destination pairs and simulates the operation of a predefined mobility service fleet, incorporating request pooling, and various operational and charging behaviors. Hive specializes at modeling fleets of automated electric vehicles (AEVs) and can be used to site and size direct current fast charge (DCFC) stations and measure grid impacts of large-scale AEV fleets serving real-world MaaS trip demand (similar to taxis, Uber, Lyft, etc.). Potential outcomes from a Hive simulation include level of service, total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), deadheading (zero passenger) miles, simultaneous and total energy loads, average occupancy, and more. Hive is developed to generalize to new regions and can be customized to handle many scenarios and operating conditions.

Rames, Clement↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Systems Modeling in Washington D.C. and Baltimore

This report documents the Argonne-Exelon effort to develop and utilize an agent-based model (ATEAM) of charging demand and infrastructure expansion applicable to the Washington, DC–Baltimore, MD consolidated metropolitan area. This study extends the ATEAM model time horizon to 10 years (from 2020 to 2030), expands agent behavior modeling capabilities, incorporates more granular and extensive empirical data on charging behavior, and analyzes charging needs for a much larger population of PEVs, in keeping with regional goals for significant adoption of ZEVs. With given targets for annual BEV adoption, five scenarios were developed to examine public infrastructure needs and resulting charging load, considering different home charging availabilities, as well as different PEV consumer profiles and public charging infrastructure deployment strategies. Scenario results show that if new chargers (both L2 and DCFC) are spread more widely (as with ubiquitous deployment strategies), there will be less variation in the number of chargers added to each census tract in the study area. More importantly, widespread public charging infrastructure with ubiquitous deployment strategies reduces unmet charging demand and improves charging success, even with heavy reliance on public charging. About 80 percent of BEV drivers can charge on their first attempt in scenarios with ubiquitous deployment strategies. Moreover, widespread public charging infrastructure better meets the demand for more charging, and in return, increases BEV adoption. Low home charging availability produces higher charging loads in public locations, especially during the early morning (around 8:00 a.m.) and late afternoon (around 6:00 p.m.). The evening peak load indicates that drivers are taking advantage of public charging before heading home. Study results also indicate that even with 20 percent home charging availability in 2030, just 20 percent of drivers attempt to charge on a given day. With their relatively high electric range (200+ miles), the BEVs expected to be on the road in 2030 can handle daily commutes without re-charging for a couple of days.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Port of New York and New Jersey Drayage Electrification Analysis

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) evaluated the potential for drayage electrification in the Port of New York and New Jersey (PoNYNJ), with a focus on operators: Harbor Freight Transport (HF), Safeway Trucking (SWT), and International Motor Freight Inc (IMF). This report summarizes the data collection and electrification evaluation of all three drayage operators, includes detailed operational data, and identifies the performance requirements for battery electric tractors (BETs) and corresponding infrastructure operated within the context of PoNYNJ drayage operation. This report also details a methodology to evaluate opportunities, strategies, and challenges associated with future expansions of BETs in meeting PANYNJ emissions goals. The Port Authority has established a goal of achieving Net Zero carbon emissions by 2050 across all facilities, including from tenant and stakeholder sources such as drayage trucks. NREL used real-world performance data collected on the three PoNYNJ drayage operations, along with modeling and analysis tools to compare BET to diesel trucks. From March to July 2021, NREL collected 1Hz vehicle and engine data from 46 drayage trucks at the three operators totaling nearly 121,000 miles of operation, providing enough information to assess vehicle operations for electrification potential. A Future Automotive Systems Technology Simulator (FASTSim) electric truck powertrain model was validated using PoNYNJ data and scenarios were run to evaluate drayage truck electrification requirements over the real-world cycles. The first scenario examined BET viability with minimal changes to existing operations. This assumes the trucks charge when stopped for two hours or longer, have a functional battery size of 375 kWh, and can charge at 270 kilowatts (kW) average which are the specification of the commercially available Freightliner eCascadia. The second scenario looked at what operational, charging infrastructure, and BET technology changes would be needed to fully electrify. Finally, detailed analysis was run on charging rate structure to understand operational costs to the fleets. The studied drayage trucks averaged 5.1 MPG, spent roughly 9% of their energy at idle, and drove an average of 140 miles per day with a maximum daily distance of 573 miles. The FASTSim model results indicate a comparable BET would use 417 kWh of energy per day on average accounting for cargo weight, which is close to the full usable capacity of the eCascadia currently available on the market. Based on the daily average operating data, partial fleet electrification is possible with current technology. However, some specific days of operation would require over 1,600 kWh of energy due to longer distances traveled by the trucks and more intense operation. Trucks used for long distance and intense operation cannot be readily electrified with current technology without operational changes. Full adoption of BETs could reduce CO 2 emissions from these fleets by roughly 75% today, eliminating 76 metric tons of CO 2 (MTCO 2 ) per vehicle each year, which equates to 24,100 MTCO 2 per year for all three operators. Commercially available direct current fast chargers (DCFC) have charge rates up to 350 kW. Based on the average daily modeled energy use for each operator, current industrial rate structures, and the assumption of 350 kW peak charging, full drayage electrification would increase electricity consumption. In addition, peak demand usage would increase with unmanaged charging along with cost of electricity having a direct impact on cost per mile for electric vehicles. The resulting cost per mile for BETs along with comparable cost per mile for conventional diesel trucks are also examined at $\$$4.00 per gallon of diesel. It will be important for PANYNJ and the drayage operators within the PoNYNJ to consider these load impacts to their existing electrical infrastructure and devise operational strategies that avoid coincident charging of vehicles to mitigate demand charges. Despite these electricity cost increases, savings from reductions in diesel consumption will help offset the costs of this increased electricity consumption. However, prices of both electricity and diesel are subject to change based on various factors meaning the realized savings will vary over time. This shows BETs could be cost-competitive on an energy cost per mile basis for all scenarios while diesel is above $\$$3.00/gal. Further, if diesel prices dropped to the 15-year low of $2.33/gal, it would still be cost competitive to operate the EVs with electricity costs of 16.3 ¢/kWh or less.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor: Deployment Plan Report

The I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor, which spans I-80 from Fort Lee, New Jersey, to Council Bluffs, Iowa, was designated an Alternative Fuels Corridor (AFC) in Round 1 of the Alternative Fuels Corridor program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Originally called the “I-80 Mid-America Alternative Fuels Corridor,” it is now named the “I-80 Mid-America Clean Fuels Corridor.” As of Round 6 AFC designation, parts of the corridor have sufficient direct current fast charging (DCFC) stations to be designated Electric Vehicle (EV)-Ready and sufficient compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling stations to be designated CNG-Ready. However, much of the corridor’s approximately 1,240 miles (mi) are not yet EV- or CNG-Ready. This includes about 1,130 mi that are designated EV-Pending and 700 mi that are designated CNG-Pending. This report presents a plan to develop EV charging and CNG fueling infrastructure sufficient to convert the entire length of the corridor to EV-Ready and CNG-Ready. Specific sites are not identified for future infrastructure. Rather, priority exits are identified, and information, analysis, and additional steps are recommended to support further refinement of these locations, as well as additional outreach and deployment efforts.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗