Ambitious global goals to improve energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are motivating a shift to electric vehicles (EVs), which include battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles. In 2018, the governor of California called for five million EVs to be on California's roads by 2030. The International Energy Agency projects a global increase in EVs from 2 million today to 280 million by 2040. Creating sustained market growth to meet such goals presents numerous challenges to all EV stakeholders, including governments, the automobile industry, electricity suppliers, non-governmental organizations, and consumers. This policy brief summarizes the latest in a series of recurring surveys of consumers regarding their awareness and consideration of EVs. Two surveys of the population of car-owning households in California were conducted in February and June of 2017; sample sizes were 1,681 and 1,706, respectively. Several survey questions have been repeated over multiple years in similar samples, allowing comparison to earlier results. View the NCST Project Webpage
Much prior research into consumer automotive and fuel purchase behaviors and fuel economy has been shaped by the normative assumptions of economics. Among these assumptions are that consumers should pay attention to costs of fuel and that they are aware of their options to save on fuel over long periods of time, i.e., the life of a vehicle or at least their period of ownership. For example, researchers have analyzed in some depth consumer choices for more fuel economical vehicles in the 1980s and more recently consumer choices in Europe for more expensive diesel vehicles with lower fuel costs than their gasoline competitors. Some of this research investigates whether automobile buyers have varying future values for money invested today in higher fuel economy, i.e., consumers' discount rates. More recently, in the context of the political battle over new CAFE standards, both automobile manufacturers and energy researchers have asked consumers questions about their willingness to pay more for higher fuel economy and consumers' payback periods for these investments. Both payback periods and net present value calculations require good knowledge of one's own vehicle and annual fuel expenses, forecasts of future prices, and a sophisticated series of calculations. The new arena of debate and research on consumer response to better fuel economy technology is CO2 reduction strategies generally, and regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation in California specifically.The research we report here is designed to help researchers and policy makers to ground future work in the reality of how consumers think and behave relative to fuel economy and efficiency, both on a daily basis and when they purchase motor vehicles. We recruited what we call an "illustrative" sample; fifty-seven households from ten "lifestyle sectors"—for example hybrid vehicle buyers, financial analysts, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts—that we guessed might have differing information and habits around the issue of fuel economy. We conducted a semi-structured, 2-hour interview, which included these four parts: household vehicle histories, purchase narratives, prospecting of future choices, and knowledge and daily behavior around fuel use and purchases.Our strongest finding was that for the most part, our households do not pay much attention to fuel cost over time or in their household budgets, unless they are severely constrained economically. Consumers do pay attention to the price of a tank of fuel and the unit price of fuel on the given day they buy fuel. But this "knowledge" is ephemeral; it is rapidly forgotten over the next few days. Fuel consumption instrumentation on most vehicles is limited and drivers seldom pay attention; the exception is hybrid vehicles and their drivers.One effect of limited knowledge is that when consumers buy a vehicle, they do not have the basic building blocks of knowledge to make an economically rational decision. When offered a choice to pay more for better fuel economy, most households were unable to estimate potential savings, particularly over periods of time greater than one month. In the absence of such calculations, many households were overly optimistic about potential fuel savings, wanting and thinking they could recover an investment of several thousand dollars in a couple of years.Of importance to regulators, we find that good fuel economy is widely considered an attribute of cheap cars; many of our households expressed greater regard for fuel efficiency, a term free from a cheap image and more closely associated to ideas of resource conservation, advanced engineering, and high technology and quality.In the last part of the report we identify five styles of decision making relative to fuel economy, including a more detailed discussion of the decision-making in a small sample of eight hybrid vehicle buyers.In closing, and as this is the first stage in a longer research project, we offer some preliminary conclusions and two hypotheses to steer more quantitative research. Our findings suggest that current strategies of drawing attention to annual fuel cost savings could disappoint buyers, and instead education efforts might focus on fuel efficiency and technical advances. Our interviewees ignore fuel economy for additional reasons; it is only one feature of an expensive, complex good which has many implications for lifestyle and image goals. Our research suggests that consumers might value fuel economy more highly if it were more like shiny paint or a bold body style—an attribute with some emotional punch.
Much prior research into consumer automotive and fuel purchase behaviors and fuel economy has been shaped by the normative assumptions of economics. Among these assumptions are that consumers should pay attention to costs of fuel and that they are aware of their options to save on fuel over long periods of time, i.e., the life of a vehicle or at least their period of ownership. For example, researchers have analyzed in some depth consumer choices for more fuel economical vehicles in the 1980s and more recently consumer choices in Europe for more expensive diesel vehicles with lower fuel costs than their gasoline competitors. Some of this research investigates whether automobile buyers have varying future values for money invested today in higher fuel economy, i.e., consumers' discount rates. More recently, in the context of the political battle over new CAFE standards, both automobile manufacturers and energy researchers have asked consumers questions about their willingness to pay more for higher fuel economy and consumers' payback periods for these investments. Both payback periods and net present value calculations require good knowledge of one's own vehicle and annual fuel expenses, forecasts of future prices, and a sophisticated series of calculations. The new arena of debate and research on consumer response to better fuel economy technology is CO2 reduction strategies generally, and regulations to reduce CO2 emissions from transportation in California specifically. The research we report here is designed to help researchers and policy makers to ground future work in the reality of how consumers think and behave relative to fuel economy and efficiency, both on a daily basis and when they purchase motor vehicles. We recruited what we call an "illustrative" sample; fifty-seven households from ten "lifestyle sectors"—for example hybrid vehicle buyers, financial analysts, and off-road vehicle enthusiasts—that we guessed might have differing information and habits around the issue of fuel economy. We conducted a semi-structured, 2-hour interview, which included these four parts: household vehicle histories, purchase narratives, prospecting of future choices, and knowledge and daily behavior around fuel use and purchases. Our strongest finding was that for the most part, our households do not pay much attention to fuel cost over time or in their household budgets, unless they are severely constrained economically. Consumers do pay attention to the price of a tank of fuel and the unit price of fuel on the given day they buy fuel. But this "knowledge" is ephemeral; it is rapidly forgotten over the next few days. Fuel consumption instrumentation on most vehicles is limited and drivers seldom pay attention; the exception is hybrid vehicles and their drivers. One effect of limited knowledge is that when consumers buy a vehicle, they do not have the basic building blocks of knowledge to make an economically rational decision. When offered a choice to pay more for better fuel economy, most households were unable to estimate potential savings, particularly over periods of time greater than one month. In the absence of such calculations, many households were overly optimistic about potential fuel savings, wanting and thinking they could recover an investment of several thousand dollars in a couple of years. Of importance to regulators, we find that good fuel economy is widely considered an attribute of cheap cars; many of our households expressed greater regard for fuel efficiency, a term free from a cheap image and more closely associated to ideas of resource conservation, advanced engineering, and high technology and quality. In the last part of the report we identify five styles of decision making relative to fuel economy, including a more detailed discussion of the decision-making in a small sample of eight hybrid vehicle buyers. In closing, and as this is the first stage in a longer research project, we offer some preliminary conclusions and two hypotheses to steer more quantitative research. Our findings suggest that current strategies of drawing attention to annual fuel cost savings could disappoint buyers, and instead education efforts might focus on fuel efficiency and technical advances. Our interviewees ignore fuel economy for additional reasons; it is only one feature of an expensive, complex good which has many implications for lifestyle and image goals. Our research suggests that consumers might value fuel economy more highly if it were more like shiny paint or a bold body style—an attribute with some emotional punch.
We report the results of a survey of the potential demand for electric vehicles (EVs) among a subset of California households. We limit our analysis to one group of potential hybrid households. These households own two or more light duty vehicles and buy new vehicles of the body styles we expect will be offered as electric vehicles. These characteristics identify households who may be able to incorporate at least one limited range vehicle into their household vehicle holdings with no, or minimal, affect on household lifestyle choices. We define hybrid households to be those households that choose an electric vehicle in the choice exercises in the survey. We formulate our central research question as the hybrid household hypothesis. It states that potential hybrid households will choose to include at least one EV in their household fleet of vehicles, thus becoming hybrid households. We believe that this subset of potential hybrid households buys between 35 and 45 percent of all new, light-duty vehicles sold in California every year. The survey instrument was administered to households who belong to this subset of households in 6 metropolitan areas of California. Four hundred and fifty-four households completed and returned the questionnaire. The hybrid household hypothesis is supported by our respondents' choices. In two different choice scenarios, nearly half our sample indicates they would choose an electric vehicle as their next new vehicle. Even among those who indicate their next new vehicle would be either a gasoline or natural gas vehicle, some indicate they would choose an EV at some point in the future. Based on the responses to the vehicle choice exercises and on the share of the market that our sample represents, we find the market potential for EVs to be 13 to 15 percent of the annual, new light-duty vehicle market in California. Based on past annual sales of 1.4 million new, light-duty vehicles in California (a typical market during the past few years), the EV market share represents between 186,000 and 213,000 vehicles annually. This is subject to several assumptions, most importantly that, besides smaller EVs, consumers will be able to choose from midsize EVs that have driving ranges between 60 and 150 miles and that EVs will be priced comparably to gasoline vehicles. Even if the former is not true, and only sub-compact and compact body styles are available, the potential market for EVs among hybrid households will be no less than 7 percent of the new light-duty vehicle market. We believe therefore, there is sufficient household consumer interest in EVs to satisfy the mandated 2 percent level of sales of zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) in the year 1998 as well as the 5 percent level m 2001 given current EV technologies To meet the mandated level of 10 percent of light-duty vehicle sales m the year 2003. will require either that advances in electrical storage technology allow for mid-size electric vehicles with driving ranges of 60 to 150 miles or the sale of sufficient smaller EVs to the market segments not surveyed for this study--commercial and government fleets and households that do not meet the potential hybrid household definition used in this study.
One way to progress toward greenhouse gas reductions is for people to drive plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Households in this study participated in a 4- to 6-week PHEV driving trial. A narrative of each household's encounter with the PHEV was constructed by the researchers from multiple in-home interviews, questionnaires completed by each household at the start and end of their 4- to 6-week PHEV demonstration period, and quantitative measures of driving and recharging behavior from the data systems onboard the vehicles. Thematic analysis was used to create themes from the narratives. Bridging from the idiosyncratic experience of each household toward a societal narrative, the authors describe the following themes: confusion, recharging habits and etiquette, changing driving behavior, payback analysis, saving money, expectations, and the future. No theme explicitly identified global warming, indicating a gap between lay and expert understandings of both the technology and motivations. The themes lead to suggestions for education, information, marketing, and direct experience.
Plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are now being offered for sale to consumers. Contemporaneously, multi-way social interactions among individuals, groups, businesses, governments, and other actors are increasingly facilitated by communication technologies: we take this to be "social media." Can this confluence facilitate the formation of new interest-based communities among plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) buyers? How might this be important to promoting PEVs? This paper presents the results of 28 in-depth interviews with household PEV drivers in San Diego, California. These PEV drivers show wide variation in their descriptions of who they believe PEV drivers to be, conceptualizations of a PEV, uses of social media to engage other members of the community, and socially mediated and face-to-face interactions with other PEV drivers. Better understanding of the relationship between emerging PEV markets, social media and consumer-based communities will affect the ongoing management of transitions to electric-mobility.
The California Air Resources Board mandated the production of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) starting in 1998. Other states may follow. Among the types of vehicles that may satisfy the requirements of this mandate are small, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) that would be used in urban areas and on collector and arterial streets for a wide range of short trips. Although NEVs hold the potential for large energy and environmental benefits, their introduction is hindered by two institutional barriers. The first of these is the federal safety standards designed for full-sized, gasoline-powered automobiles. The second is the California ZEV regulations that may not award ZEV credits to manufacturers for all vehicles certified as ZEVs, particularly very small NEVs. Also there are important inconsistencies in the vehicle definitions used in these and other regulations and vehicle codes. This has created confusion with regard to their applicability to various small vehicle designs. The history of legislative rule making as it relates to small vehicles is explored, and possible strategies for overcoming these regulatory barriers to the production and sale of NEVs are discussed.
The California Air Resources Board mandated the production of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) starting in 1998. Other states may follow. Among the types of vehicles that may satisfy the requirements of this mandate are small, neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs) that would be used in urban areas and on collector and arterial streets for a wide range of short trips. Although NEVs hold the potential for large energy and environmental benefits, their introduction is hindered by two institutional barriers. The first of these is the federal safety standards designed for full-sized, gasoline-powered automobiles. The second is the California ZEV regulations that may not award ZEV credits to manufacturers for all vehicles certified as ZEVs, particularly very small NEVs. Also there are important inconsistencies in the vehicle definitions used in these and other regulations and vehicle codes. This has created confusion with regard to their applicability to various small vehicle designs. The history of legislative rule making as it relates to small vehicles is explored, and possible strategies for overcoming these regulatory barriers to the production and sale of NEVs are discussed.
Presented at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Hydrogen Conference (NHA 2005), Washington, DC, March 29 - April 1, 2005The first step, in any program of self-improvement, is admitting you have a problem. My friends and colleagues, I would like to talk to you today about two big problems. We have a communication problem--communicating with our fellow citizens whose political, economic, and moral support we will need to achieve our transportation energy goals. We have an education problem--educating the professionals with the knowledge required to understand these goals and create the necessary technologies and strategies to achieve them.
Presented at the National Hydrogen Association Annual Hydrogen Conference (NHA 2005), Washington, DC, March 29 - April 1, 2005 The first step, in any program of self-improvement, is admitting you have a problem. My friends and colleagues, I would like to talk to you today about two big problems. We have a communication problem--communicating with our fellow citizens whose political, economic, and moral support we will need to achieve our transportation energy goals. We have an education problem--educating the professionals with the knowledge required to understand these goals and create the necessary technologies and strategies to achieve them.
On July 22, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed AB 1493 into law. This law requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) propose rules that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions of light duty vehicles in California. The goal of this study was to provide insight into industry and consumer response to government regulations, especially as they might relate to future regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This report addresses industry and consumer behavior with respect to emissions, safety, and energy use in the U.S. and Europe over the past few decades.We created and analyzed a large data set of vehicle characteristics, sales, and prices, vehicle financing practices, and exogenous factors such as income, for the period 1975-2003, and supplemented the data analysis with case studies of the introduction of oxidation and three-way catalysts, air bags, and hybrid electric vehicles in the US; and diesel cars in Europe.We found that costs imposed on vehicles due to US emissions and safety regulations have been significant — somewhere between $2500 and $4000 per vehicle. These costs represent up to 1/3 of vehicle price increases since the 1970s. Whether one considers these costs to be large or small, they had little discernible effect on industry performance and activities. The cost increases have been largely accommodated within normal business and market planning processes of companies.
On July 22, 2002, Governor Gray Davis signed AB 1493 into law. This law requires that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) propose rules that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions of light duty vehicles in California. The goal of this study was to provide insight into industry and consumer response to government regulations, especially as they might relate to future regulations that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. This report addresses industry and consumer behavior with respect to emissions, safety, and energy use in the U.S. and Europe over the past few decades. We created and analyzed a large data set of vehicle characteristics, sales, and prices, vehicle financing practices, and exogenous factors such as income, for the period 1975-2003, and supplemented the data analysis with case studies of the introduction of oxidation and three-way catalysts, air bags, and hybrid electric vehicles in the US; and diesel cars in Europe. We found that costs imposed on vehicles due to US emissions and safety regulations have been significant — somewhere between $2500 and $4000 per vehicle. These costs represent up to 1/3 of vehicle price increases since the 1970s. Whether one considers these costs to be large or small, they had little discernible effect on industry performance and activities. The cost increases have been largely accommodated within normal business and market planning processes of companies.
