the volumes of the different fuels used; (2) Resource fuels and their use in the production of ethanol, hydrogen (H{sub 2}), and electricity; (3) Ethanol use in the scenarios (i.e., the ethanol consumption in E85 vs. other blends, the percent of travel by flex fuel vehicles on E85, etc.); (4) Relative availability of E85 and H2 stations; (5) Fuel prices; (6) Vehicle prices; and (7) Consumer savings. These results are discussed as follows: (1) The three scenarios (Mixed, (P)HEV & Ethanol, and H2 Success) when assuming vehicle prices developed through literature review; (2) The three scenarios with vehicle prices that incorporate the achievement of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) program vehicle cost goals; (3) The three scenarios with 'literature review' vehicle prices, plus vehicle subsidies; and (4) The three scenarios with 'program goals' vehicle prices, plus vehicle subsidies. The four versions or cases of each scenario are referred to as: Literature Review No Subsidies, Program Goals No Subsidies, Literature Review with Subsidies, and Program Goals with Subsidies. Two additional points must be made here. First, none of the results presented for LVs in this section include Class 2B trucks. Results for this class are included occasionally in Reference 1. They represent a small, though noticeable, segment of the 'LV plus 2B' market (e.g., a little more than 3% of today's energy use in that market). We generally do not include them in this discussion, simply because it requires additional effort to combine the NEMS-MP results for them with the results for the other LVs. (Where there is an exception, we will indicate so.) Second, where reference is made to E85, the ethanol content is actually 74%. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) assumes that, to address cold-starting issues, the percent of ethanol in E85 will vary seasonally. The EIA uses an annual average ethanol content of 74% in its forecasts. That assumption is maintained in the NEMS-MP scenario runs.

This report provides details for Phase 2 of the Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study, which compares alternative ways to make significant reductions in oil use and carbon emissions from U.S. light vehicles to 2050. Phase I, completed in 2009, examined the full range of pathways of interest to EERE, with multiple scenarios aimed at revealing the issues and impacts associated with a national effort to reduce U.S. dependence on oil use in transportation. Phase 2 expanded the scope of the analysis by examining the interactive effects of multiple pathways on each other and on oil and feedstock prices, focusing far more on costs; and substantially increasing the number of metrics used to compare pathways and scenarios.

Presentation reporting Phase 1 results, 3/9/2007. Projecting the future role of advanced drivetrains and fuels in the light vehicle market is inherently difficult, given the uncertainty (and likely volatility) of future oil prices, inadequate understanding of likely consumer response to new technologies, the relative infancy of several important new technologies with inevitable future changes in their performance and costs, and the importance — and uncertainty — of future government marketplace interventions (e.g., new regulatory standards or vehicle purchase incentives). The Multi-Path Transportation Futures (MP) Study has attempted to improve our understanding of this future role by examining several scenarios of vehicle costs, fuel prices, government subsidies, and other key factors. These are projections, not forecasts, in that they try to answer a series of “what if” questions without assigning probabilities to most of the basic assumptions.

This PowerPoint briefing provides documentation and details for Phase 1 of the Multi-Path Transportation Futures Study, which compares alternative ways to make significant reductions in oil use and carbon emissions from U.S. light vehicles to 2050. Phase I, completed in 2006, was a scoping study, aimed at identifying key analytic issues and constructing a study design. The Phase 1 analysis included an evaluation of several pathways and scenarios; however, these analyses were limited in number and scope and were designed to be preliminary.