What economic and policy framework would foster a transition in the European transport sector from fossil fuels to hydrogen in the long term (2030-50)? This research combines empirical and theoretical approaches and aims to answers the following questions:1.How to design appropriate policy instruments to solve inefficiencies in hydrogen mobility deployment?2.How to define abatement cost and an optimal launching date in the presence of learning-by-doing (LBD)?3.How to define an optimal deployment trajectory in presence of LBD and convexity in investment costs?The paper 'Transition Towards a Hydrogen-Based Passenger Car Transport: Comparative Policy Analysis' draws a cross-country comparison between policy instruments that support the deployment of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV). The existing policy framework in favour of FCEV and hydrogen infrastructure deployment is analysed. A set of complementary ex-post policy efficiency indicators is developed and calculated to rank the most active countries, supporters of FCEV. Denmark and Japan emerge as the best providers of favourable conditions for the hydrogen mobility deployment: local authorities put in place price-based incentives (such as subsidies and tax exemptions) making FCEV more financially attractive than its gasoline substitute, and coordinate ramping-up of their hydrogen infrastructure nationally.The paper 'Defining the Abatement Cost in Presence of Learning-by-doing: Application to the Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle' models the transition of the transport sector from a pollutant state to a clean one. A partial equilibrium model is developed for a car sector of a constant size. In this model the objective of the social planner is to minimize the cost of phasing out a stock of polluting cars from the market over time. The cost includes the private cost of green cars production, which are subject to LBD, and the social cost of carbon, which has an exogenous upward trend. During the transition, the equalization of marginal costs takes into account the fact ...
What economic and policy framework would foster a transition in the European transport sector from fossil fuels to hydrogen in the long term (2030-50)? This research combines empirical and theoretical approaches and aims to answers the following questions:1.How to design appropriate policy instruments to solve inefficiencies in hydrogen mobility deployment?2.How to define abatement cost and an optimal launching date in the presence of learning-by-doing (LBD)?3.How to define an optimal deployment trajectory in presence of LBD and convexity in investment costs?The paper 'Transition Towards a Hydrogen-Based Passenger Car Transport: Comparative Policy Analysis' draws a cross-country comparison between policy instruments that support the deployment of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV). The existing policy framework in favour of FCEV and hydrogen infrastructure deployment is analysed. A set of complementary ex-post policy efficiency indicators is developed and calculated to rank the most active countries, supporters of FCEV. Denmark and Japan emerge as the best providers of favourable conditions for the hydrogen mobility deployment: local authorities put in place price-based incentives (such as subsidies and tax exemptions) making FCEV more financially attractive than its gasoline substitute, and coordinate ramping-up of their hydrogen infrastructure nationally.The paper 'Defining the Abatement Cost in Presence of Learning-by-doing: Application to the Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle' models the transition of the transport sector from a pollutant state to a clean one. A partial equilibrium model is developed for a car sector of a constant size. In this model the objective of the social planner is to minimize the cost of phasing out a stock of polluting cars from the market over time. The cost includes the private cost of green cars production, which are subject to LBD, and the social cost of carbon, which has an exogenous upward trend. During the transition, the equalization of marginal costs takes into account the fact that the current action has an impact on future costs through LBD. This paper also describes a suboptimal plan: if the deployment trajectory is exogenously given, what is the optimal starting date for the transition? The paper provides a quantitative assessment of the FCEV case for the substitution of the mature Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. The analysis concludes that the CO2 price should reach 53€/t for the program to start and for FCEV to be a socially beneficial alternative for decarbonizing part of the projected German car park in the 2050 time frame.The impact of LBD on the timing and costs of emission abatement is, however, ambiguous. On the one hand, LBD supposes delaying abatement activities because of cost reduction of future abatement due to LBD. On the other hand, LBD supposes starting the transition earlier because of cost reduction due to added value to cumulative experience. The paper 'The Role of Learning-by-Doing in the Adoption of a Green Technology: the Case of Linear LBD' studies the optimal characteristics of a transition towards green vehicles in the transport sector when both LBD and convexity are present in the cost function. The partial equilibrium model of (Creti et al., 2015) is used as a starting point. For the case of linear LBD the deployment trajectory can be analytically obtained. This allows to conclude that a high learning induces an earlier switch towards green cars in the case of low convexity, and a later switch in the case of high convexity. This insight is used to revisit the hydrogen mobility project in Germany. A high learning lowers the corresponding deployment cost and reduces deepness and duration of the, investment 'death valley' (period of negative project's cash flow). An acceleration of exogenously defined scenario for FCEV deployment, based on the industry forecast, would be beneficial to reduce the associated transition cost. ; Quel cadre économique et réglementaire à long terme (2030-50) pour soutenir la transition énergétique des carburants fossiles vers l'hydrogène dans le secteur européen des transports ? Cette recherche combine les approches théoriques et empiriques pour répondre aux trois questions suivantes :1.Comment concevoir des politiques de soutien adaptées pour pallier les imperfections de marché lors du déploiement de technologies de mobilité hydrogène ?2.Comment modéliser les coûts d'abattement en tenant compte des effets d'apprentissage (LBD) ?3.Comment définir la trajectoire optimale de déploiement quand le LBD et la convexité des coûts d'investissement sont présents ?L'article 'Transition vers un Système de Transport de Passagers à Hydrogène : Analyse Politique Comparée' passe au crible des politique de soutien destinées à résoudre les imperfections de marché dans le déploiement de la mobilité hydrogène. L'article effectue une comparaison internationale entre les instruments en faveur du déploiement des véhicules. Les indicateurs ex post d'efficacité des politiques sont développés et calculés pour classifier les pays selon leur volontarisme dans la promotion des véhicules à piles à combustible (FCEV). Aujourd'hui le Japon et le Danemark apparaissent comme les meilleurs fournisseurs d'un environnement favorable au déploiement de la mobilité hydrogène. Les autorités locales introduisent de solides instruments prix (tels que des subventions et des exemptions fiscales) pour rendre le FCEV plus attractif par rapport à son analogue à essence et coordonnent le déploiement de l'infrastructure hydrogène sur le territoire.L'article 'Modélisation des Coûts d'Abattement en Présence d'Effets d'Apprentissage : le Cas du Véhicule à Hydrogène' présente un modèle de transition du secteur des transports d'un état polluant à un état propre. Un modèle d'équilibre partiel est développé pour un secteur automobile de taille constante. L'optimum social est atteint en minimisant le coût de la transition du parc automobile au cours du temps. Ce coût comprend les coûts privés de production des véhicules décarbonés (sujets aux effets d'apprentissage) ainsi que le coût social des émissions de CO2 qui suit une tendance haussière exogène. L'article caractérise la trajectoire optimale qui est un remplacement progressif des véhicules polluants par les décarbonés. Au cours de la transition, l'égalisation des coûts marginaux tient compte de l'impact des actions présentes sur les coûts futurs via l'effet d'apprentissage. L'article décrit aussi une trajectoire sous-optimale où la trajectoire de déploiement serait une donnée exogène : quelle serait alors la date optimale de début de la transition ? L'article présente une évaluation quantitative de la substitution des FCEV aux véhicules à combustion interne (ICE). L'analyse conclut que le FCEV deviendra une option économiquement viable pour décarboner une partie du parc automobile allemand à l'horizon 2050 dès que le prix du carbone atteindra 50-60€/t.L'article 'Le rôle des Effets d'Apprentissage dans l'Adoption d'une Technologie Verte : le Cas LBD Linéaire' étudie les caractéristiques d'une trajectoire optimale de déploiement des véhicules décarbonés dans le cas où les effets d'apprentissage et la convexité sont présents dans la fonction de coût. Le modèle d'équilibre partiel de Creti et. al (2015) est utilisé comme point de départ. Dans le cas LBD linéaire la trajectoire de déploiement optimale est obtenue analytiquement. Un apprentissage fort induit une transition antérieure vers les véhicules verts dans le cas d'une convexité faible et une transition ultérieure dans le cas d'une convexité forte. Ce résultat permet de revisiter le projet H2 Mobility en Allemagne. Un effet d'apprentissage plus fort et une accélération du déploiement aboutissent à une transition moins coûteuse et une période de cash flow négatif plus courte.
What economic and policy framework would foster a transition in the European transport sector from fossil fuels to hydrogen in the long term (2030-50)? This research combines empirical and theoretical approaches and aims to answers the following questions:1.How to design appropriate policy instruments to solve inefficiencies in hydrogen mobility deployment?2.How to define abatement cost and an optimal launching date in the presence of learning-by-doing (LBD)?3.How to define an optimal deployment trajectory in presence of LBD and convexity in investment costs?The paper 'Transition Towards a Hydrogen-Based Passenger Car Transport: Comparative Policy Analysis' draws a cross-country comparison between policy instruments that support the deployment of Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV). The existing policy framework in favour of FCEV and hydrogen infrastructure deployment is analysed. A set of complementary ex-post policy efficiency indicators is developed and calculated to rank the most active countries, supporters of FCEV. Denmark and Japan emerge as the best providers of favourable conditions for the hydrogen mobility deployment: local authorities put in place price-based incentives (such as subsidies and tax exemptions) making FCEV more financially attractive than its gasoline substitute, and coordinate ramping-up of their hydrogen infrastructure nationally.The paper 'Defining the Abatement Cost in Presence of Learning-by-doing: Application to the Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle' models the transition of the transport sector from a pollutant state to a clean one. A partial equilibrium model is developed for a car sector of a constant size. In this model the objective of the social planner is to minimize the cost of phasing out a stock of polluting cars from the market over time. The cost includes the private cost of green cars production, which are subject to LBD, and the social cost of carbon, which has an exogenous upward trend. During the transition, the equalization of marginal costs takes into account the fact that the current action has an impact on future costs through LBD. This paper also describes a suboptimal plan: if the deployment trajectory is exogenously given, what is the optimal starting date for the transition? The paper provides a quantitative assessment of the FCEV case for the substitution of the mature Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. The analysis concludes that the CO2 price should reach 53€/t for the program to start and for FCEV to be a socially beneficial alternative for decarbonizing part of the projected German car park in the 2050 time frame.The impact of LBD on the timing and costs of emission abatement is, however, ambiguous. On the one hand, LBD supposes delaying abatement activities because of cost reduction of future abatement due to LBD. On the other hand, LBD supposes starting the transition earlier because of cost reduction due to added value to cumulative experience. The paper 'The Role of Learning-by-Doing in the Adoption of a Green Technology: the Case of Linear LBD' studies the optimal characteristics of a transition towards green vehicles in the transport sector when both LBD and convexity are present in the cost function. The partial equilibrium model of (Creti et al., 2015) is used as a starting point. For the case of linear LBD the deployment trajectory can be analytically obtained. This allows to conclude that a high learning induces an earlier switch towards green cars in the case of low convexity, and a later switch in the case of high convexity. This insight is used to revisit the hydrogen mobility project in Germany. A high learning lowers the corresponding deployment cost and reduces deepness and duration of the, investment 'death valley' (period of negative project's cash flow). An acceleration of exogenously defined scenario for FCEV deployment, based on the industry forecast, would be beneficial to reduce the associated transition cost. ; Quel cadre économique et réglementaire à long terme (2030-50) pour soutenir la transition énergétique des carburants fossiles vers l'hydrogène dans le secteur européen des transports ? Cette recherche combine les approches théoriques et empiriques pour répondre aux trois questions suivantes :1.Comment concevoir des politiques de soutien adaptées pour pallier les imperfections de marché lors du déploiement de technologies de mobilité hydrogène ?2.Comment modéliser les coûts d'abattement en tenant compte des effets d'apprentissage (LBD) ?3.Comment définir la trajectoire optimale de déploiement quand le LBD et la convexité des coûts d'investissement sont présents ?L'article 'Transition vers un Système de Transport de Passagers à Hydrogène : Analyse Politique Comparée' passe au crible des politique de soutien destinées à résoudre les imperfections de marché dans le déploiement de la mobilité hydrogène. L'article effectue une comparaison internationale entre les instruments en faveur du déploiement des véhicules. Les indicateurs ex post d'efficacité des politiques sont développés et calculés pour classifier les pays selon leur volontarisme dans la promotion des véhicules à piles à combustible (FCEV). Aujourd'hui le Japon et le Danemark apparaissent comme les meilleurs fournisseurs d'un environnement favorable au déploiement de la mobilité hydrogène. Les autorités locales introduisent de solides instruments prix (tels que des subventions et des exemptions fiscales) pour rendre le FCEV plus attractif par rapport à son analogue à essence et coordonnent le déploiement de l'infrastructure hydrogène sur le territoire.L'article 'Modélisation des Coûts d'Abattement en Présence d'Effets d'Apprentissage : le Cas du Véhicule à Hydrogène' présente un modèle de transition du secteur des transports d'un état polluant à un état propre. Un modèle d'équilibre partiel est développé pour un secteur automobile de taille constante. L'optimum social est atteint en minimisant le coût de la transition du parc automobile au cours du temps. Ce coût comprend les coûts privés de production des véhicules décarbonés (sujets aux effets d'apprentissage) ainsi que le coût social des émissions de CO2 qui suit une tendance haussière exogène. L'article caractérise la trajectoire optimale qui est un remplacement progressif des véhicules polluants par les décarbonés. Au cours de la transition, l'égalisation des coûts marginaux tient compte de l'impact des actions présentes sur les coûts futurs via l'effet d'apprentissage. L'article décrit aussi une trajectoire sous-optimale où la trajectoire de déploiement serait une donnée exogène : quelle serait alors la date optimale de début de la transition ? L'article présente une évaluation quantitative de la substitution des FCEV aux véhicules à combustion interne (ICE). L'analyse conclut que le FCEV deviendra une option économiquement viable pour décarboner une partie du parc automobile allemand à l'horizon 2050 dès que le prix du carbone atteindra 50-60€/t.L'article 'Le rôle des Effets d'Apprentissage dans l'Adoption d'une Technologie Verte : le Cas LBD Linéaire' étudie les caractéristiques d'une trajectoire optimale de déploiement des véhicules décarbonés dans le cas où les effets d'apprentissage et la convexité sont présents dans la fonction de coût. Le modèle d'équilibre partiel de Creti et. al (2015) est utilisé comme point de départ. Dans le cas LBD linéaire la trajectoire de déploiement optimale est obtenue analytiquement. Un apprentissage fort induit une transition antérieure vers les véhicules verts dans le cas d'une convexité faible et une transition ultérieure dans le cas d'une convexité forte. Ce résultat permet de revisiter le projet H2 Mobility en Allemagne. Un effet d'apprentissage plus fort et une accélération du déploiement aboutissent à une transition moins coûteuse et une période de cash flow négatif plus courte.
In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant with California (70,000), Germany (25,000), France (31,000), Japan (608,000) Denmark (3,000), but they remain very low relative to the targets for 2020: California (1.5 million), Germany (1 million), France (2 million), Japan (0.8-1.1 million for ZEV new registrations), Denmark (0.25 million). The developments and efficiency gains in battery technology along with subsidies for battery charging public stations are expected to facilitate the achievement of the growth. The relative rates of equipment (number of publicly available stations / number of BEV) provide indirect evidence on the effort made in the different countries: California (3%), Germany (12%), France (28%), Japan (11%), and Denmark (61%). In some countries public procurement plays a significant role. In France Autolib (publicly available cars in towns) represents a large share of the overall BEV deployment (12%), and the government recently announced a 50% target for low emissions in all public vehicles new equipment. FCEV is still in an early deployment stage due to a higher infrastructure investment cost and a higher cost for vehicle. The relatively high autonomy combined with speed refueling make FCEV mostly suited for long distance and interurban usage. At present there are only a very limited numbers of HRS deployed: California (28), Germany (15), France (6), Japan (31), Japan (7), Denmark (7), and only a few units of H2 vehicles on road: California (300), Germany (125), France (60), Japan (7), Denmark (21). However, a detailed analysis of the current road maps suggests that FCEV has a large potential. Targets for the 2025-2030 horizons are significant in particular in Germany (4% in 2030), Denmark (4.5% in 2025) and Japan (15-20% for ZEV new registrations in 2020). The California ARB has recently redefined its program (subsidies and mandates) to provide higher incentives for FCEV. France appears to focus on specialized regional submarkets to promote FCEV (such as the use of H2 range extending light utility vehicles). The financing of the H2 infrastructure appears as a bottleneck for FCEV deployment. Roadmaps address this issue through progressive geographical expansion (clusters) and a high level of public subsidies hydrogen refueling station (HRS) in particular in all countries except France. At this stage of BEV and FCEV do not appear as direct competitors; they address distinct market segments. Unexpected delays in the development of infrastructure in FCEV, possible breakthroughs in battery technology, and the promotion of national champions may change the nature of this competition, making it more intense in the future.
In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant with California (70,000), Germany (25,000), France (31,000), Japan (608,000) Denmark (3,000), but they remain very low relative to the targets for 2020: California (1.5 million), Germany (1 million), France (2 million), Japan (0.8-1.1 million for ZEV new registrations), Denmark (0.25 million). The developments and efficiency gains in battery technology along with subsidies for battery charging public stations are expected to facilitate the achievement of the growth. The relative rates of equipment (number of publicly available stations / number of BEV) provide indirect evidence on the effort made in the different countries: California (3%), Germany (12%), France (28%), Japan (11%), and Denmark (61%). In some countries public procurement plays a significant role. In France Autolib (publicly available cars in towns) represents a large share of the overall BEV deployment (12%), and the government recently announced a 50% target for low emissions in all public vehicles new equipment. FCEV is still in an early deployment stage due to a higher infrastructure investment cost and a higher cost for vehicle. The relatively high autonomy combined with speed refueling make FCEV mostly suited for long distance and interurban usage. At present there are only a very limited numbers of HRS deployed: California (28), Germany (15), France (6), Japan (31), Japan (7), Denmark (7), and only a few units of H2 vehicles on road: California (300), Germany (125), France (60), Japan (7), Denmark (21). However, a detailed analysis of the current road maps suggests that FCEV has a large potential. Targets for the 2025-2030 horizons are significant in particular in Germany (4% in 2030), Denmark (4.5% in 2025) and Japan (15-20% for ZEV new registrations in 2020). The California ARB has recently redefined its program (subsidies and mandates) to provide higher incentives for FCEV. France appears to focus on specialized regional submarkets to promote FCEV (such as the use of H2 range extending light utility vehicles). The financing of the H2 infrastructure appears as a bottleneck for FCEV deployment. Roadmaps address this issue through progressive geographical expansion (clusters) and a high level of public subsidies hydrogen refueling station (HRS) in particular in all countries except France. At this stage of BEV and FCEV do not appear as direct competitors; they address distinct market segments. Unexpected delays in the development of infrastructure in FCEV, possible breakthroughs in battery technology, and the promotion of national champions may change the nature of this competition, making it more intense in the future.
In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant ...
In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant ...
