Corrigendum to “Energy policy considerations in the design of an alternative-fuel refueling infrastructure to reduce GHG emissions on a transportation network” [Energy Policy 111 (2017) 427–439](S0301421517305943)(10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.035)

Jose Antonio Ventura, Sang Jin Kweon, Seong Wook Hwang, Matthew Tormay, Chenxi Li

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debate

Abstract

The authors regret missing information in Section 4.4: Estimation of greenhouse gas emission savings. The authors previously stated: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year; and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” This sentence should read: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year (see Figure 8(c)); and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” The information below was also published incorrectly in Section 5: Conclusions and future work. The authors previously stated: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” This sentence should read: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Number of pages1
JournalEnergy Policy
Volume113
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018

Fingerprint

alternative fuel
Energy policy
Alternative fuels
energy policy
Gas emissions
Greenhouse gases
savings
infrastructure
budget
greenhouse gas
analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Energy(all)
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

@article{56b18f8202ae464c9a0edd36a5af8f75,
title = "Corrigendum to “Energy policy considerations in the design of an alternative-fuel refueling infrastructure to reduce GHG emissions on a transportation network” [Energy Policy 111 (2017) 427–439](S0301421517305943)(10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.035)",
abstract = "The authors regret missing information in Section 4.4: Estimation of greenhouse gas emission savings. The authors previously stated: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90{\%} for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year; and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” This sentence should read: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92{\%} for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year (see Figure 8(c)); and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” The information below was also published incorrectly in Section 5: Conclusions and future work. The authors previously stated: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90{\%} for the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” This sentence should read: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92{\%} for the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.",
author = "Ventura, {Jose Antonio} and Kweon, {Sang Jin} and Hwang, {Seong Wook} and Matthew Tormay and Chenxi Li",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "113",
journal = "Energy Policy",
issn = "0301-4215",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Corrigendum to “Energy policy considerations in the design of an alternative-fuel refueling infrastructure to reduce GHG emissions on a transportation network” [Energy Policy 111 (2017) 427–439](S0301421517305943)(10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.035)

AU - Ventura, Jose Antonio

AU - Kweon, Sang Jin

AU - Hwang, Seong Wook

AU - Tormay, Matthew

AU - Li, Chenxi

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

N2 - The authors regret missing information in Section 4.4: Estimation of greenhouse gas emission savings. The authors previously stated: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year; and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” This sentence should read: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year (see Figure 8(c)); and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” The information below was also published incorrectly in Section 5: Conclusions and future work. The authors previously stated: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” This sentence should read: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

AB - The authors regret missing information in Section 4.4: Estimation of greenhouse gas emission savings. The authors previously stated: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year; and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” This sentence should read: “Our analysis shows that, when the budget level becomes $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for all five combinations (see Table 4), and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year (see Figure 8(c)); and when the budget level reaches $44 M, full VMT coverage is achieved in three of the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $1.74 M/year and $1.85 M/year.” The information below was also published incorrectly in Section 5: Conclusions and future work. The authors previously stated: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 90% for the five combinations, and the annual SCC savings range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” This sentence should read: “In the PA Turnpike case study, our analysis shows that, at a budget level of $32 M, the effective VMT coverage reaches 92% for the five combinations, and the average SCC savings per $1 M invested range between $2.35 M/year and $2.62 M/year.” The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034107292&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034107292&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.017

DO - 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.11.017

M3 - Comment/debate

AN - SCOPUS:85034107292

VL - 113

JO - Energy Policy

JF - Energy Policy

SN - 0301-4215

ER -