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)

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.