Watts-to-wheel comparison of the air quality, health, and equity impacts of light-v. heavy-duty vehicle electrification in the U.S. Midwest

Abstract Electric vehicle adoption strategies have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions. However, the effectiveness of this transition may depend on which vehicles are electrified, and where. To assess the efficacy of different modes of transportation electrification, we apply a watts-to-wheel analysis framework that accounts for upstream emission increases from battery charging and downstream reductions in tailpipe emissions. Using the WRF-CMAQ chemical transport model at ∼1 km 2 resolution, we compare the greenhouse gas, air quality, and public health impacts of electrifying 30% of light-duty vehicles (eLDVs) versus 30% of heavy-duty vehicles (eHDVs) across a U.S. Midwestern domain. Both electrification scenarios achieve net reductions in CO 2 emissions despite increased emissions from electricity generation units, with greater total reductions from eLDVs (∼7 Mt CO 2 /year, −4.5%) than eHDVs (∼1.6 Mt CO 2 /year, −1.1%). However, air quality benefits are greater in the eHDV scenario, where cumulative reductions in health-harming air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) and elemental carbon (EC) exceed those in the eLDV scenario. Both scenarios show modest increases in daily 8 h average ozone (MDA8 O 3 ), with disbenefits largest in the eHDV scenario. Estimated health benefits of the eHDV scenario exceed those of the eLDV scenario, with 70 (50) more avoided premature deaths annually from reduced NO 2 (EC), offset by 50 additional deaths from MDA8 O 3 increases. In both scenarios, the largest health benefits occur in communities with higher proportions of Black and Hispanic residents. However, long-standing relative exposure disparities persist. On a per-vehicle basis, we find that electrifying one HDV yields nearly 5× more CO 2 reduction-based economic benefits and 23× more NO 2 reduction-based economic health benefits than a single eLDV. Our results demonstrate that multi-modal and multi-pollutant assessments are critical for informing more effective and equitable decarbonization and air pollutant remediation strategies.