Results for Light-duty Vehicle Charging
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
This deck is an update to an April 8 version that showed
incorrect state-level DCFC port counts on slides 11, 36-41
Results for Light-duty Vehicle Charging
Lucy McKenzie, Charles Satterfield, Nick Nigro
Atlas Public Policy
April 21, 2021
This work was supported by the Hewlett Foundation
Our Key Focus Areas
• Access: Collect and
disseminate publicly available
information.
• Interpret: Create dashboards
DC-based policy tech firm started in 2015 and tools to spur insights and
conduct data-driven analyses.
We equip businesses and policymakers to • Empower: Strengthen the
make strategic, informed decisions that ability of policymakers,
serve the public interest businesses, and non-profits to
meet emerging challenges
and identify opportunities that
serve the public interest.
Atlas would like to thank the following individuals and organizations who generously provided their
expertise and data in support of this work:
• Aminah Zaghab, Energy Foundation
• Eric Wood and Yanbo Ge, National Renewable Energy Lab
• Mike Nicholas, Nic Lutsey, and Gordon Bauer, the International Council on Clean Transportation
• Eric Seilo, Southern California Edison
• Erin Falquier, Chicane Labs
• Adam Mohabbat, EVgo
• Noel Crisostomo, California Energy Commission
• Ram Vijayagopal, Argonne National Lab
• Jessie Lund, Rocky Mountain Institute
• Jasna Tomic, CALSTART
• Ken Kresyman, Ameren
• Daniel Haake, HDR
• Britt Reichborn-Kjennerud and Jared Trumpetto, ConEdison
• Lincoln Wood, Southern Company
• Charging infrastructure need for light-duty vehicles • Methodology overview • Next steps Note all dollar values included here are in 2020 dollars, not nominal dollars. Check the Notes section of the slides for sources etc.
$9B
Depot Charging
for Light-Duty
Fleets
$39B
Publicly-
Accessible
Charging
$22B
Single-Family
Home
Charging
$17B
Multi-Unit Home $0.3B
Charging Charging at Private
Workplaces
Cumulative Light-duty EV Stock • National ZEV-only sales
mandate from 2035; S-
100% 297
Post-2035: curve sales 2021-2034
Cumulative Light-duty EVs Adopted
90% EV sales only 267
EV stock / Total vehicle stock
80% 237 • Same EV % across all
70% 208 states and across
60% 178 Personal/Fleet LDVs
(Millions)
50% 148
• Vehicle stock increases at
40% 119
U.S. EIA projected rates
30% 89
20% 59 • Transportation network
10% 30 company vehicles (Lyft,
0% - Uber) not separately
modeled; included in
2032
2054
2020
2022
2024
2026
2028
2030
2034
2036
2038
2040
2042
2044
2046
2048
2050
2052
2056
2058
2060
Personal LDVs
Personal Light-Duty Vehicles Fleet Light-Duty Vehicles
Cumulative charging ports needed beyond current installations to support
100% electrification of light-duty vehicle stock
Depot Level 2 for light-duty
140 fleets
Charging Ports Needed (Millions)
Public DC Fast Charging -
120 350kW
100 Public Level 2
80
Workplace Level 2
60
Home Level 2 - Multi-unit
40
20 Home Level 2 - Single-family
attached
0
Home Level 2 - Single-family
detached
Source for home charging access assumption: Ge and Wood “There's No Place Like Home: Residential Parking, Electrical Access, and Implications for the
Future of Electric Vehicle Charging” NREL Technical Report (forthcoming).
Cumulative charging ports needed beyond current installations to support
100% electrification of light-duty vehicle stock
1,400
Charging Ports needed (Thousands)
Public DC Fast
1,200 Charging - 350kW
495K by 2030 Public Level 2
1,000
800 Workplace Level 2
600
• Assumes 350kW DCFCs:
400 building lower-power
ports would mean more
200
are needed
0 • Doesn’t include fast
2034
2040
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
charging needed for very
long trips (> 250 miles)
Additional Charging Investment Needed to Support 100% Electrification of Light-Duty Vehicle Stock by 2060
90 87.0
Cumulative Charging Infrastructure Investment
Depot Level 2 for light-duty fleets
80
73.7
70 Public DC Fast - 350kW
60.5
60
Public Level 2
($2020 Billions)
50 48.5
40 37.7 Workplace Level 2
30 28.6
21.0 Home Level 2 - Multi-unit
20 14.9
10.3 Home Level 2 - Single-family
10 6.9
attached
0 Home Level 2 - Single-family
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
detached
Installing 150kW rather than 350kW DCFC ports increases needed public charging investment from $39B to $52B$2.56B $1.2B est. $4.5B
approved remaining $709M committed
utility committed committed charging
infrastructure by Electrify by states infrastructure
support investment
America
• Included in these figures is some support for medium- & heavy-duty vehicles
• Some funds have already been invested
• 80% of state funding and 75% of utility support are in NY + CA
Source: Atlas EV HubCumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed Through 2025,
Lower Atlantic Region
25 WV
Cumulative DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
VA
2021 onward shows count of 21
350kW ports needed SC
20 1.0
NC
3.0
16 GA
0.8 2.2
15 FL
2.3
13
0.6 1.7 4.1
1.7
10 2020 figure 9 3.2
includes DCFC 0.4 1.3
1.2 4.1
ports of various 2.5
6
power levels 1.0 3.3
1.8 2.5
5
1.8 6.6
2
5.2
3.9
2.9
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Other regions show a similarly step increase in needed ports. See Appendices for additional charts.Needed Investment to Install Public Charging 2021-2030,
Calculated Using Costs for 2 Ports per Site vs. 6-10 Ports per Site
50 $8.6B
45
40
35
$2020 Billions
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2 ports per site 6-10 ports per site (used in all analyses)
Source: Atlas analysis using per-port costs from The International Council on Clean Transportation, 2019,
"Estimating electric vehicle charging infrastructure costs across major U.S. metropolitan areas"Charging = EV adoption x Ports needed per x Cost per port
investment need vehicle
by state, charging split by personal / by charging type, by charging type,
type, year fleet vehicles, state state, year
by state, year
Investment in Scale labor costs by
public, workplace, state differences;
and depot ports is User can choose to
assumed to be reduce input costs
needed ahead of over time
adoptionPorts needed
per vehicle
Years built prior
to associated EV
Vehicle type Charging type kW power level adoption
Home Level 2 - Single-family detached Sufficient to fully 0
Home Level 2 - Single-family attached recharge vehicle 0
Personal light-duty Home Level 2 - Multi-family overnight 0
vehicles Workplace Level 2 6.6 kW 2
Public Level 2 6.6 kW 5
Public DCFC 350 kW 5
Fleet light-duty vehicles Depot Level 2 6.6 kW 2Ports needed
’ per vehicle
Extrapolation of EVI-Pro-Lite Public L2 Charging Need • 100% 250-mile BEVs
6,000
CA: y = 51251x + 172.2 • We extrapolate beyond
R² = 0.9998
5,000
TX: y = 43584x + 189.8 NREL’s 10% adoption level
R² = 0.9991
with linear trends
4,000
Public L2 Ports
FL: y = 31611x + 168.2 • 10% of CA vehicles (~2M) is
R² = 0.9993
3,000
> total vehicles in 35 states
NY: y = 23605x + 78.533
R² = 0.9998 • CEC/NREL analysis shows linear
2,000 relationship for 5M CA vehicles
1,000
CO: y = 10426x + 46.667
R² = 0.9992
• For DCFC, we scale NREL’s
analysis of needed 150kW
0
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%
capacity to 350kW ports
EV Adoption as % of Personal LDVsPorts needed
per vehicle
• 70% of daily driving
under 40 miles;
95% under 100 miles
• EVI-Pro-Lite & our
analysis do not capture
kWh needed for >250-
mile trips
Source: NREL EVI-Pro –Lite Assumptions and MethodologyPorts needed
per vehicle
NREL survey/model:
at 100% adoption, share All fleet charging
50% of vehicles have of vehicles parked near
home charging access outlet or where owners assumed to occur at
think new electrical
install could occur
depots
Based on data
from NYSERDA
All home charging is L2
With power sufficient to Assume two LDV fleet rebate
fully charge overnight recipients &
vehicles per port conversations
with NREL
Census data from NREL
Single-family attached,
provides % of vehicles
Single-family detached,
parked in each type of Multi-family
housing, by statePorts needed
per vehicle
Public charging ports in Colorado, by Network • We net out existing public
charging from EV Hub
• Existing home, workplace and
depot charging are assumed to
be sufficient to serve existing
EVs
Source: Atlas EV HubCost per port
(by charging type,
Cost per port
state)
Other • Workplace, public and depot charging costs are based
materials, on average installed costs for 6+ ports per site
EVSE permits,
Charging Type Labor hardware taxes Total • Labor costs assume prevailing wages
Home L2 - Single-family
$583 $391 $- $974 • ‘Other materials’ includes typical utility upgrade costs
detached *
for Workplace Charging, Depot Charging, Public L2 and
Home L2 - Single-family
$2,027 $400 $- $2,428 up to 10 DCFC ports per site
attached *
• Excludes:
Home L2 – Multi-family $3,345 $512 $- $3,857
• Cost of utility network upgrades caused by home
Workplace L2 $1,435 $1,488 $900 $3,823 charging
• Utility upgrade costs beyond 10 x 350kW DCFC ports /
Public L2 $1,579 $1,817 $1,110 $4,507
site, at high-cost distribution sites, or as they may change
at higher levels of EV adoption
Public DCFC - 350kW $15,963 $141,907 $15,422 $173,292
• Site selection costs
Depot L2 – LDV $1,435 $951 $900 $3,286 • Site upgrade costs: lighting, striping, signage, security,
Source: Atlas analysis of cost data from The International Council on Clean Transportation, 2019 landscaping
• Replacement EVSE hardware at end of useful life
*Home charging costs are a weighted average of costs for homes requiring charging
upgrades and those that do not, as reported currently for California. • Maintenance
• Communications costs for networked chargers
• On-site battery and solar costsCost per port
EVSE Hardware Cost – Public DCFC 350kW
$150,000
$140,000 • 3% is assumption used by the
ICCT (2019) for their 2019 –
$2020
$130,000
$120,000 2025 charging cost analysis
$110,000 • We do not reduce cost of labor
$100,000 or other materials over time
$90,000
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
$2,000
EVSE Hardware Cost – Other Charging Types
Public L2
$1,500 Workplace L2
$2020
$1,000 Depot L2 - LDV
Home L2 - Multi-Unit
$500
Home L2 - Single-family attached
$0
2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 Home L2 - Single-family detached0%
100%
120%
140%
160%
20%
40%
60%
80%
National Average
Illinois
Hawaii
Alaska
Massachusetts
New Jersey
Minnesota
Washington
New York
Connecticut
California
District of Columbia
Oregon
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Missouri
Rhode Island
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Delaware
Ohio
Colorado
Nevada
Montana
Indiana
Maryland
New Hampshire
Iowa
West Virginia
Utah
Kentucky
Louisiana
Virginia
Construction and Extraction Occupations
Maine
Vermont
State Median Hourly Wage as % of National Average,
Arizona
Nebraska
Kansas
Texas
Oklahoma
New Mexico
Alabama
Source: Standard Occupational Classification System Code 47-0000, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2019
Idaho
Tennessee
South Carolina
Georgia
North Carolina
South Dakota
Florida
Mississippi
Cost per port
ArkansasCharging
investment
need
Where discounted results are reported, we use a 2% real discount
rate
• This follows guidance put forth by the Council of Economic Advisers in 2017• Working on a similar assessment for MD/HD trucks and will share results late Spring. • Publishing a public version of the INSITE tool late Summer.
• Tool will be freely available and Use Cases
built in Microsoft Excel
✓Input to jobs analyses
• First Release Q3 2021 ✓Deep dives on individual
states
• Possible future updates: ✓Input to distribution planning
• Add data from NREL EVI-Pro 2, models
EVI-RoadTrip if/when available ✓Assess cost savings from res
and commercial EV-friendly
• Annual update with latest data building codes
from U.S. EIA, FHWA, etc. ✓Assess impacts of novel home
charging access approachesLucy McKenzie, Charles Satterfield, and Nick Nigro
lucy.mckenzie@atlaspolicy.com
charles.satterfield@atlaspolicy.com
nick.nigro@atlaspolicy.com–
3 CASE STUDIES OF LEADING UTILITY ZETA MEMBERS’ APPROACH TO MANAGING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IMPACTS OF EVS:
1. Southern California Edison, CA
Program Name Program Description
Distribution system In its Pathway 2045 report, SCE identifies the need to electrify 75% of passenger vehicles, 67% of medium-duty vehicles, and
planning & costs 38% of heavy-duty vehicles by 2045 to achieve CA’s greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals. The report forecasts electricity
forecasts demand based on these EV adoption targets and performs analysis to estimate the required distribution system upgrades and
the associated costs in order to reliably meet that demand. The report finds that these costs would come to about $4
billion. The report also includes analysis on how much additional energy storage would be needed given different levels
of “flexibility” in EV charging load
Time-of-use (TOU) SCE offers and encourages the use of several time-of-use (TOU) rates to encourage off-peak charging. Participation in SCE’s
rates utility-funded charging infrastructure programs such as the Charge Ready programs requires enrollment in a TOU rate. All
SCE's commercial rates are TOU. For residential customers, SCE also offers TOU-D-PRIME, which features on-peak, off-peak,
and super off-peak periods and differs on weekends and in the summer vs. the winter.
Demand Response SCE offers residential and commercial customers the option to participate in DR programs. These programs offer incentives to
(DR) Programs customers for reducing their electricity use when demand is high, including by disconnecting EV loads. DR programs help
utilize existing grid infrastructure more efficiently and can help defer or costs of grid upgrades.
Smart Charging SCE offers several programs to support the installation of EV charging stations at workplaces, multi-unit dwellings, schools,
Technology parks, and other public locations. In order to ensure preparedness for efficient grid integration, Southern California Edison
Requirements requires participating charging projects to install “smart” charging technology capable of a variety of functions that enable
grid integration such as demand response capability. Several programs also require participants to take part in DR programs.2. Consolidated Edison, NY
Program Name Program Description
SmartCharge off-peak Offers EV drivers financial incentives to charge their vehicles during off-peak hours. As of September 18, 2028, the program
incentives includes medium- and heavy-duty vehicles .
Time-of-use (TOU) rates Offers lower rates for off-peak charging. ConEd offers a whole-house TOU rate and an EV-only TOU rate (which requires a
separate meter).
On-board telematics ConEd is exploring the use of onboard telematics to inform system planning. A 3-month pilot program offered Honda
program Clarity PHEV drivers financial incentives to share charging data, and additional incentives to charge off-peak. A full-scale
version of the program was launched in 2020. They have also contracted with Ford and BMW to explore onboard telematics.
~ $36M annually to ConEd was authorized in its last rate case to invest an average of $36 million annually from 2022-2022 in improving the
enhance distribution distribution system from a safety, reliability, resiliency, efficiency, and automation standpoint. These planned improvements
system account for increasing penetration of distributed energy resources (DERs), including EVs .
$3.7M DERMs $3.7 million approved to develop and evaluating ConEds’ DERMS (distributed energy resource management system). The goal
programs of DERMS functionality is to allow grid operators to monitor and forecast DER activity, such as EV charging, in order
to increase grid flexibility and resiliency as more DERs connect to the grid.
Grid upgrades for DER Investing in grid upgrades to allow management of bi-directional power flows, which is essential as DER penetration
integration increases. For example, ConEdison is upgrading 2,000 network protector relays, which will allow DERs to export power.
$1.1M School Bus V2G ConEdison invested in 5 electric school buses in White Plains, NY that will provide vehicle-to-grid services during the summer
Demonstration Project months.3. Georgia Power, GA
Program Name Program Description
Develop and evaluate Over three years, from 2019-2021, Georgia Power will evaluate a DERMS to integrate various DERs into the distribution
Distributed Energy system in an optimal way. The goal is to implement a market-ready, technology-indifferent hardware and software solution
Resource Management that allows real-time, central monitoring of DERs. The evaluation process, will include demonstration projects where
System (DERMS) Southern Company will test DERMS with proven technologies.
Non-Wires Alternatives Distributed Energy Resources (DERs), including EVs, may require increased grid flexibility but can also help provide increased
(NWAs) grid flexibility. Georgia Power will consider NWAs, such as the use of DERs, alongside traditional transmission and
distribution solutions to determine the best solution in a given situation from a reliability, cost, and lead-time perspective.
PEV TOU Rate Georgia Power offers EV drivers a Plug-In Electric Vehicle Time-of-Use Rate (PEV TOU) to encourage off-peak charging by
offering lower electricity rates during off-peak hours and even lower rates during “super off-peak hours .”
Working with EPRI to Georgia Power is working with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) as well as major vehicle manufacturers to study
study EV charging grid the impacts of EV charging load on grid reliability and to develop strategies to integrate EV charging load cost-effectively and
impacts beneficially. Among other topics, Georgia Power is studying the potential benefits of vehicle-to-home (V2H) and vehicle-to-
grid (V2G) applications for EV charging.
Demand-Side Georgia Power offers DSM programs for residential and commercial customers such as programs for “smart” products like
Management (DSM) EVs that can provide demand response. DR programs help utilize existing grid infrastructure more efficiently and can help
Programs defer or costs of grid upgrades.–
Additional Charging Investment Needed to Support 100% electrification of light-duty vehicle stock
$45
Cumulative Public Charging Investment Needed
$40 $38.8 Midwest
$35.4
$35 Lower Atlantic
$31.3 $12.1
$30 $11.0 Central Atlantic
$27.2
($2020 Billions)
$9.8
$25
$23.0 $6.8
New England
$8.5
$18.9 $6.2
$20 $7.2 $5.5 Rocky Mountain
$4.5
$15.1 $6.0 $4.8 $4.1
$15 $3.6 $1.8
$4.1 $1.6
$11.5 $4.8 $3.1 $1.9 West Coast
$3.4 $1.5 $1.7
$10 $8.4 $3.7 $2.6 $1.3 $1.5
$2.7 $2.2 $0.9 $1.1 $1.3 $6.1
$5.9 $0.7 $2.7 $0.7 $1.1 $5.5
$2.1 $0.5 $1.7 $4.9 Gulf Coast
$0.9 $4.2
$5 $1.9 $1.5 $0.4 $1.3 $0.7 $3.5
$0.3 $1.0 $2.8
$1.1 $2.2
$0.3 $1.1 $0.4 $1.6 $0.6 $4.0 $4.6 $5.2 $5.7
$2.3 $2.8 $3.4
$1.7
$- $0.9 $0.6 $1.3
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030Cumulative Personal Light-Duty EVs on the Road, by Region
60
Personal Light-duty EV adoption (millions)
53.6 Midwest
50
14.4 Lower Atlantic
42.2
40
Central Atlantic
11.4
31.9 9.8
30 New England
8.6 7.7
23.1 6.8
Rocky Mountain
2.4
20 6.2 5.8 5.3
2.1
16.1 1.9
4.2 4.0 1.6 West Coast
4.3
10.8 1.0 1.4 11.0
2.9 1.2
10 2.9 8.7
7.0 2.9 0.7
4.6 2.0 2.0 0.9 6.6
3.1 1.9 0.5 Gulf Coast
2.4 1.3
0.9 1.4 0.6 4.8
1.5 0.3 0.4 3.3 5.6 7.2
1.4 2.2 3.1 4.3
0.9 0.3 1.4 2.1
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030Total Needed DCFC investment 2021 – 2025
per Personal Light-Duty EV Adopted 2021-2030
(before accounting for DCFC already installed)
120
We also see smaller
100 regional differences in
needed investment due to:
80
• # existing DCFCs installed
$2020
60
• differences in labor cost
40
20
0
Rocky Mountain Midwest Gulf Coast New England Lower Atlantic Central Atlantic West CoastCumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
Gulf Coast Region
20
2021 onward shows count of
18 17
350kW ports needed
16 TX
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
14
14
8.5 NM
12
11 MS
10 6.7
1.0 LA
8 2020 figure 8
5.1
includes DCFC 1.4
0.8
6 ports of various 6 3.8 AR
1.1 1.9
power levels 0.6
0.8 1.5
4 1.6 AL
0.4 1.2 1.3
0.9 1.0
2 1 0.7 0.6
2.4 3.0
1.4 1.9
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025Cumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
Central Atlantic Region
14
13
2021 onward shows count of
12 350kW ports needed
10 4.5 PA
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
10
NY
8 3.6
8 NJ
2020 figure 4.4
includes DCFC 6 2.7 MD
6
ports of various
2.1 3.4
power levels
4 DC
4 1.9 2.6
1.8
2 1.4 DE
0.8 1.1
2 1.4
0.6 1.1
0.8
0.6 0.8
0.5 0.4
0 0.4
0.2 0.3
0.2
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025Cumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
West Coast Region
18
17 0.5
2021 onward shows count of
16 0.5 HI
350kW ports needed 1.0
1.6 AK
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
14 0.4
13
2020 figure NV
includes DCFC 0.4 2.6
12 0.8
ports of various OR
power levels 1.3
10 9 0.3 AZ
2.0 3.0
0.6 0.3 WA
8 7 0.9
0.2
6 2.3 CA
0.2 1.5
6
0.4
1.7
4 1.1 7.9
4 0.7
5.6 1.2 5.9
2 4.0
2.4
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025Cumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
Midwest Region
40 WI
2021 onward shows count of 36 TN
35 350kW ports needed 3.0 SD
3.1 0.7
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
29 OK
30
1.7 OH
2.4
25 2.4 0.6 4.8 ND
22 0.5
1.4 NE
1.8 0.9
20 0.4 3.8 0.4 2.6
1.9 MO
2020 figure 16 1.0 2.5
0.7
2.9 2.0 MN
15 includes DCFC 0.3 3.8
2.0
ports of various 11 0.5 MI
1.6 3.0
power levels 1.5 2.4
10 1.2 KY
2.3 1.9
0.7 1.0 2.0
1.5 1.6 KS
5 1.2 3.0
3 2.4 IA
1.2 1.8
2.3 3.0 3.8
0 IN
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
ILCumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
New England Region
6
2021 onward shows count of 5
350kW ports needed VT
5 0.5
0.4 RI
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
4
4 0.4 0.7 NH
0.3
MA
3
0.6
3 0.3 ME
2020 figure 0.2 1.8
includes DCFC 2 0.4
0.2 1.4 CT
ports of various
2 power levels 0.2
2 1.1
0.8
0.3
0.8 0.6
1 1
0.5
0.3 1.1
0.7 0.9
0.5
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025Cumulative 350kW DC Fast Charging Ports Needed to Through 2025,
Rocky Mountain Region
6
6
2021 onward shows count of
350kW ports needed 0.6 WY
5
DCFC Ports Needed (Thousands)
4 UT
1.0
0.5
4
MT
3 0.8 1.1
3 0.4 ID
2020 figure
includes DCFC 0.6 0.9
2
ports of various 1.0 CO
0.3 0.7
2 power levels
2 0.8
0.5 0.4 0.6
1 0.4
1 1.9
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.5
0
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025You can also read
