It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Light-duty transportation continues to be a significant source of air pollutants that cause premature mortality and greenhouse gases (GHGs) that lead to climate change. We assess PM2.5 emissions and its health consequences under a large-scale shift to electric vehicles (EVs) or Tier-3 internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) across the United States, focusing on implications by states and for the fifty most populous metropolitan statistical areas (MSA). We find that both Tier-3 ICVs and EVs reduce premature mortality by 80%–93% compared to the current light-duty vehicle fleet. The health and climate mitigation benefits of electrification are larger in the West and Northeast. As the grid decarbonizes further, EVs will yield even higher benefits from reduced air pollution and GHG emissions than gasoline vehicles. EVs lead to lower health damages in almost all the 50 most populous MSA than Tier-3 ICVs. Distributional analysis suggests that relying on the current gasoline fleet or moving to Tier-3 ICVs would impact people of color more than White Americans across all states, levels of urbanization, and household income, suggesting that vehicle electrification is more suited to reduce health disparities. We also simulate EVs under a future cleaner electric grid by assuming that the 50 power plants across the nation that have the highest amount of annual SO2 emissions are retired or retrofitted with carbon capture and storage, finding that in that case, vehicle electrification becomes the best strategy for reducing health damages from air pollution across all states.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign , Urbana, IL, United States of America
3 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Washington , Seattle, WA, United States of America
4 Department of Energy Science and Engineering, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America; Precourt Institute for Energy, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America; Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University , Stanford, CA, United States of America; Nova School of Business and Economics , Carcavelos, Portugal