COMPETT. COMPETT - COMPetitive Electric Town Transport. Erik Figenbaum Project Coordinator Compett Institute of Transport Economics, Norway

Transcription

1 COMPETT COMPETT - COMPetitive Electric Town Transport Erik Figenbaum Project Coordinator Compett Institute of Transport Economics, Norway COMPETT Final conference, 11. June 2015, Oslo

2 COMPETT Partners, duration Duration: June 2012 to June 2015 Partners Institute of Transport Economics (Norway) Buskerud and Vestfold University College Kongsberg Innovation Austrian Energy Agency Danish Road Directorate Funding Electromoblity+ Transnova/Norwegian Public Roads Administration The Research Council of Norway The Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG) The Danish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education

3 Key objective and research question Key objective: Facilitate the market introduction and increased use of electrified vehicles Research question: How can e-vehicles come into use to a greater degree

4 Overview of organization and methods WP 1 Technology, vehicles, infrastructure: status, Austria, Denmark, Norway WP 2 Analysis of travel patterns, Norway and Denmark, Travel surveys WP 3 Noise measurements, Denmark WP 4 Regional case studies in Austria and Norway, User/stakeholder surveys WP 5 Economic modeling work, scenarios WP 6 Dissemination, web page, workshops, conference, handbook

5 Reports and scientific articles from COMPETT WP1 Technical platform Figenbaum, E., Emmerling, B. (2014). State of the Art Electric Propulsion. Vehicles and Energy Supply. AEA Report, Dec WP2 Electromobility and daily travel Hjorthol, R. (2013). Attitudes, ownership and use of Electric Vehicles a review of literature. TØI, Report 1261/2013. Hjorthol, R., Vågane, L., Foller, J., Emmerling, B. (2014). Everyday mobility and potential use of Electric vehicles. TØI, Report 1352/2014. WP3 Silent urban driving Iversen, L.M (2012). Noise from electric vehicles a literature survey. DRD, Dec Iversen, L.M. (2013). Noise from electric vehicles state-of-the-art literature survey. Paper at Internoise Iversen, L.M., Holck Skov, R.S (2015). Noise from electric vehicles Measurements. DRD, May Iversen, L.M., Holck Skov, R.S. (2015). Measurement of noise from electrical vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles under urban driving conditions. Paper at Euronoise WP4 Regional electromobility Figenbaum, E., Kolbenstvedt, M., Elvebakk, B. (2014). Electric vehicles environmental, economic and practical aspects as seen by current and potential users. TØI, Report 1329/2014. Assum, T. Kolbenstvedt, M., Figenbaum, E. (2014). The future of electromobility in Norway some stakeholder perspectives. TØI, Report 1385/2014. Jellinek, R., Emmerling, B., Pfaffenbichler, P. (2015). Austrian Case Study. AEA, Mai Figenbaum, E., Kolbenstvedt, M. (2015). Pathways to electromobility - perspectives based on Norwegian experiences. TØI, Report 1420/2015. Figenbaum, E., Assum, T., Kolbenstvedt, M. (2015). Electromobility in Norway - experiences and opportunities. Article forthcoming in European Transport Research. WP5 Economic assessment of incentives for implementation Fearnley, N., Pfaffenbichler, P., Figenbaum, E., Jellinek, R. (2015). E-vehicle policies and incentives assessment and recommendations. TØI, Report 1421/2015, forthcoming. Figenbaum, E., Fearnley, N., Pfaffenbichler, P., Hjorthol, R., Kolbenstvedt, M., Jellinek, R., Emmerling, B., Bonnema, G.M., Ramjerdi, F., Vågane, L., Iversen, L.M. (2015). Increasing the competitiveness of e-vehicles in Europe. Paper at European Transport Conference Forthcoming article in European Transport Research Review (ETRR). Dissemination main results COMPETT Team (2015). Competitive Electric Town Transport. Guidelines to increased use of Electric Vehicles. COMPETT June TØI, AEA, Vienna University of Technology, DRD Figenbaum, E. et.al. (2015). Competitive Electric Town Transport. Main results from COMPETT an Electromobility+ project. TØI, Report 1422/2015, forthcoming.

6 CPB noise level [dba] Electromobility To reach societal goals Targets (Objectives COMPETT contribute to, but no own research) Reduce greenhouse gas emissions Energy efficiency Reduce local pollution Decrease energy dependency Noise reduction (COMPETT) EVs are 4-5 db less noisy than ICEs at steady speeds below 20 km/h Changing 100 % of the fleet to EVs, reduce noise marginally at 30 km/h No expected impact on city noise Steady driving Leaf Golf Poly. (Leaf) Poly. (Golf) speed km/h 6

7 Market share of EVs Market status - EVs 12.5% 20.4% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% EV market share 2011 EV market share 2012 EV market share 2013 EV market share 2014 EV market share Q

8 Market share of PHEVs Market status - PHEVs 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% PHEV market share 2011 PHEV market share 2012 PHEV market share 2013 PHEV market share 2014 PHEV market share

9 Market share of PHEVs+Evs Market status - EVs+ PHEVs 13.5% 22.9% EV+PHEV market share 2011 EV+PHEV market share 2012 EV+PHEV market share 2013 EV+PHEV market share 2014 EV+PHEV market share % 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Reduced annual tax Bonus Grant 5000, No congestion charge London Grant SEK Exempt. registr. tax Purchase incentives Reduced company car tax, 9 Purchase incentives, fast charge stations Tax Taxincentive up up to to US$, High occupancy HOV lane access vehicle lane access EVs + infrastructure traded for emission quotas

10 Norwegian story Frame of reference Electricity: 97% hydroelectric, 1% wind 85% of households have vehicles, 42% more than one 2.5 million passenger vehicles in total fleet Yearly driving distance km 50 years of high vehicle taxes

11 Extensive EV incentives in Norway Vehicle taxation relief Exemption Value Added Tax (VAT) 2001 Exemption vehicle registration tax 1996 Reduced annual tax 2005 Reduced company car tax User privileges (local incentives) Access to bus lanes 2003 Free toll roads 1997 Free parking 1998 Reduced rate ferries 2009 Support for normal charging Support for fast charging ( ) Incentives are national and were originally open ended No finish date, no link to targets Climate policy white paper and parliament settlement 2012: Incentives remain in place until 2017 or EVs Agreement may Technology improvements guideline for changes VAT exemption replaced by subsidy scheme, Full annual tax gradually introduced Local/regional authorities will decide future of user privileges

12 Efficiency of incentives Serapis model BEVs vs budget cost (loss of tax income) Norway Conclusion Purchase incentives most effective, Bus lane access «cheap» and effective Free parking is not effective 12

13 Long term policies and incentives in Norway Norway Anchored in broad political agreements Open ended, until law/regulation changed Tax exemptions, large taxes on ICEs National Stable over long time Never empty Consumer oriented Many valuable user privileges Conclusion: Stable long term framework for businesses and consumers, risk compensated for all. Typical other countries Current government or local authority policy Linked to date or target, reneval needed Grant/bonus from budget allocations, no taxes on ICEs Often regional partial markets, fleets, vans Frequent change and short time horizon Funds run empty, lead time for new budget Fleet oriented Some offer preferential parking Conclusion: Unstable short term framework, risk for actors/consumers related to changes Exeptions: France, UK 13

14 Many windows of opportunity, lobbying and receptive politicians led to Norway s package of incentives being introduced when costs were low 14

15 Share of EV market 2014 Share of consumer buying EVs 100% 90% 20% 18% 80% 37% 70% 60% 50% 24% 75% 61% 90% 85% 67% 53% 40% 80% 30% 20% 10% 0% 36% 25% 39% Norway France Germany UK (incl. PHEV) 10% Sweden (Incl. PHEV) 15% Finland (2011) 33% 29% Denmark (Jan-Oct) Belgium (of fleet ) Consumers Legal entities Private leasing Company leasing Businesses Car dealers and -industry Others

16 Mini Small Compact Large. Current selection of EVs and their characteristics match more people s needs better than before Introduction year of EV models in Norway

17 Number of new EVs sold in Norway Vehicle price 2014 NOK VW Golf Gasoline with taxes Citroën C-Zero Nissan Leaf Acenta VW Golf Gasoline without taxes Kia Picanto VW Up Gas with. Tax Norway VW Up Gas without. tax Mini EV Compact EV Mini gasoline Compact gasoline Mine gasoline no taxes Mine gasoline no taxes Think City Mitsubishi I-MiEV Citroen C-Zero Peugeot ion Nissan Leaf Ford Focus Tesla Model S Volkswagen up! BMW i3 Renault Zoe Kia Soul Volkswagen Golf Nissan NV200 Mercedes B-class Others

18 VEHICLE PRICE EURO Value of incentives Example E-up Norway (tax + 25% VAT on ICE vehicle) Other countries, 19% VAT on both Cost gap 8700 Euro VW UP 1,0/75 HK, ASG VW E-UP 0 VW UP 1,0/75 HK, ASG VW E-UP Value added tax Vehicle registration tax Vehicle price without taxes Options included: Metallic paint, Climatronic, Navigation, Tech. package Vehicle price without taxes Value added tax Options included: Metallic paint, Climatronic, Navigation, Tech. package

19 Asking price vehicle NOK Asking price vehicle NOK Second hand value vs new price Oct.-Dec Asking price determined by age and price of new vehicle, km small influence Value loss Leaf 2011, km= NOK Of which price reduction new Leaf NOK Value loss I-Miev 2011, km= NOK Of which price reduction new I-Miev NOK y = -0,528x R² = 0, y = -0,1682x R² = 0, y = -0,5465x R² = 0, y = -0,0549x R² = 0,0056 y = -0,4907x R² = 0,5801 y = -1,111x R² = 0, Odometer reading Odometer reading km 2011 model (q4 2014) 2012 model (q4 2014) 2013 model (q4 2014) Price new 2011 (2014 value) Price new 2012 (2014 value) Price new 2013 (2014 value) Price new 2014 Lineær (2011 model (q4 2014)) Lineær (2012 model (q4 2014)) Lineær (2013 model (q4 2014)) Price 2011 model Price 2013 model Price New 2012 (2014 value) Price New 2014 Lineær (Price 2012 model) 19 Price 2012 model Price New 2011 (2014 value) Price New 2013 (2014 value) Lineær (Price 2011 model) Lineær (Price 2013 model)

20 Value of user privileges: NOK /car/year (1900 Euro) Incentive Value per car /year Value for EV fleet (52 000) million /year Large contribution in covering extraordinary loss of value due to falling prices and better technology Bus lane Toll-road Free parking Free ferries Total Bus lane: Users estimate of time saved multiplied by time cost Toll road: Share per municipality that pass toll road to go to work multiplied by cost saved when passing 200 days per year, rebates taken into account Free parking Users estimated weekly savings Free ferries Share of owners that say it has high importance multiplied with cost of ferry 200 days per year, including rebates Source: User survey Compett/TOI 2014

21 Norway Overall picture The worlds largest and most powerful package of incentives fueling rapid EV diffusion Supportive politicians, (1990s) Allow testing, initial use (2000s) Industrial development (2010+) Climate mitigation Unique chain of events, «Windows of opportunity» Establishment of «EV regime». Lobbied to get the incentives Established the initial market Kept activity, when other countries abandoned EVs Sales took off in 2011 when the established market actors started sales of EVs taking advantage of all incentives the «EV regime» had achieved Geels Multi-level perspective framework Theory used to understand EV policies in Norway

22 Average CO2-emission new registrations g/km Norwegian climate policy 85 g/km in 2020 Parliament settlement in 2012 based on the goal of limiting the average rise in global temperature to no more than 2 C above the pre-industrial level. Jan Jun Nov Apr Sep Feb Jul Des Mai Okt Mar Aug Jan Jun Nov Apr Sep Feb Jul Des Mai Okt Mar Aug Jan Jun Nov Apr Sep Feb Jul Des Mai Okt Mar Aug 220 Norway rely on EVs / PHEVs reaching 20-30% market shares by White paper on climate change 2012 goal: 85 g/km in 2020 y = 180,56e -0,005x R² = 0, Emissions new vehicles including EVs Emissions new vehicles excluding EVs Source: TØI 2015/CO2 data: OFV AS

23 Diffusion of EVs Step models 1-2 segments Step models 2-3 segments Step models 4-6 segments Step models All segments Press and media Neighborhood effect Friends telling friends Rogers Theory of Diffusion of innovations 23

24 Norway: Worlds fastest EV-diffusion 50000, 2% of fleet,

25 Market shares and EV share fleet Bergen and surrounding province, 33% Market shares in Provinces 1st. quarter % 23 % 11% 12% 25% 13% 17% 9% 8% 16% 23% 21% 14% 12% 7% Oslo, 29% 22% 11% Source: TØI/OFVAS Map: Statkart.no 4% Trondheim, the third largest city in Norway, 3.2% Askøy 6.9% Skaun 5.5% Bergen, the second largest city in Norway, 4.4% Finnøy, Island, 14.4% Stavanger city, 2.3% Kristiansand, city 3.8% Small population, Extreme cold winters Oslo, the capital of Norway, 3.5% Asker 7.9% 1st. quarter 2015 Share of EVs in fleet % % % 0.50%-1.0% % % 4.0-8% >8% 25

26 Radial diffusion from cities to rural areas 12/ / /2015 Share of EVs in fleet % % % 0.50%-1.0% % % 4.0-8% >8% 26

27 EV owners in Norway ( ) Large transportation needs: full time workers with children Long distance to work Most have unchanged travel pattern Positive and negative modal shifts Most multi vehicle households Main motivation: Low operating cost Households types of EV ownership EV only 1 EV; 22% EV only 2+ EVS; 3% EV and ICE; 75% Identification: EV-DRIVER 87% will buy again Source: Compett user survey in Norway in

28 Norway: The «everyday workhorse» km/year Drivers learn to manage range, multi vehicle households best options 1. The theoretical range, i.e. the type approval value 2. The weight of the vehicle 3. The number of passengers and luggage 4. The topography 5. The temperature 6. Good or foul weather conditions 7. The use of climate controls in the vehicle 8. Type of precipitation 9. Road surface, type of asphalt, bare or covered with snow or ice 10. The number of stops (energy used to recondition cabin) 11. Types of tyres (summer, winter, all year, low resistance) 12. The speed of travel 13. The place of travel 14. The driving style

29 Percent of days with travel in interval km Number of days over range limit Most daily travel is possible Electric vehicles can cover a large share of transportation Multivehicle households manage easily - swapping vehicles 100% 98% 96% 94% 92% 90% 88% 86% 84% 82% 80% Accumulated percent summer Assumed: Summer range 120 km, winter range 80 km Individual trips as car driver Trip chains as car driver Travel per day as car driver Accumulated percent winter Norway Source: Travel survey data Norway Summer Winter

30 ICE vehicle owners need more information About the same for single and multi vehicle households Source: User surveys Norway

31 Number of days over range limit Number of days over range limit Public charging reduces days over range limit 2015 vehicle 2017 vehicle Assumed: Summer range 120 km, winter range 80 km Assumed: Summer range 200 km, winter range 140 km Days removed Days remaining Days removed Days remaining Short distances on average before parking at next stop 1.5 hours of normal charging/stop Fast charging once on days when needed. Source: Travel survey data Norway 31

32 2017 vehicle Hours drivne since start 2015 vehicle Hours drivne since start Feasibility of long trips supported by fast charging Without waiting With 20 minute waiting Km driven since start 2015 EV summer 2015 EV Winter ICE vehicle EV summer 2015 EV Winter Km driven since start 2017 EV Summer 2017 EV Winter ICE vehicle EV Summer 2017 EV Winter Charge time 20 minutes in summer, 40 minutes in winter. With and without 20 minutes wait time. SOC start at 100%, charge at 20%, drive to 80% etc. Pauses ICE vehicle owner 15 minutes every 2 hours. Average speed 80 kph vehicle range: 120 km summer, 80 km winter vehicle range: 200 km summer, 140 km winter 32

33 Key messages Large consumer groups can accomplish daily travel using EVs Multi-vehicle households have best options when range is insufficient EVs diffuse when price made acceptable, consumers experience relative advantage, are compensated low residual value, aware of and can test EVs. Diffusion starts in city areas, spread radially to rural areas, from multi to single vehicle households. Important real barriers to EV diffusion: range, price, second hand value, awareness, availability of charging infrastructure. Society support EV diffusion introducing policies and incentives reducing these barriers, potentially burdening public budgets when EVs proliferate Policies should be carefully designed and implemented as a stable but flexible national framework

34 Europe - 45 million multi-vehicle households with parking Large adoption have not been possible in most countries. Insufficient frameworks have not compensated actors and consumers economic risk Germany, France, Spain, UK and Italy will be the big markets Smaller countries have the best parking availability Eastern Europe, few multivehicle households, parking unknown

35 It s all about pleasing the man in the middle.. Equally relevant for buyer and salesman Consistency Flexibility Wide scope Stability Vehicle sales price Infrastructure Low operative cost Relative advantage Second hand value Transport needs Awareness Vehicle characteristics Interests and values Competence Models, types and makes Testability Household type Sources of information Parking/electricity availability 35

36 Thank you for the attention! Contact: Erik Figenbaum Institute of Transport economics