Will Subsidies Drive Electric Vehicle Adoption? Measuring Consumer Preferences in the U.S. and China

Transcription

1 Will Subsidies Drive Electric Vehicle Adoption? Measuring Consumer Preferences in the and (In review at Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice) John Paul Helveston 1, Yimin Liu 4, Elea McDonnel Feit 3, Erica Fuchs 1, Erica Klampfl 4, Jeremy Michalek 1,2 August 5, 214 Department of Engineering and Public Policy 1. Department of Engineering & Public Policy, CMU 2. Department of Mechanical Engineering, CMU 3. Department of MarkeFng, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania 4. Ford Motor Company

2 : Oil & Economic Security, Less Pollution, Tech. Leadership largest car market in the world today: o 16.3 million new cars sold in 213 o 1/4 new cars in the world are made in Govt promoting policies to support energy-saving technologies (Zhou et al., 21) Home to distinct form industrial innovation: often in technology commercialization, redefinition (Brandt & Thun, 21; Breznitz & Murphee, 211; Ernst & Naughton, 28) Debated: despite less stringent requirements (WTO, 1979), can rapidly industrializing nations reduce pollution, industrialize, & lead innovation? (Wheeler, 21) Opportunity: Electric vehicles 2 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

3 EVs: Shift gas to electricity, reduce oil consumption & emissions Full Gasoline Full Gasoline Mix No Gasoline Conven&onal Conventional Conventional Hybrid- Hybrid- Electric Electric Hybrid- Electric Plug-in Plug-in Plug- in Plug-in Hybrid Hybrid Hybrid Electric Electric Electric Ba8ery Electric Battery Battery Electric Electric CV HEV PHEV BEV AbbreviaFon CV CV HEV PHEV BEV BEV Power Convertor Power Convertor Battery Battery Pack Pack Gasoline Gasoline Power Convertor BaRery Pack - - Small Medium Large Gasoline Engine Engine & Engine & Motor Engine Engine Engine Motor & Engine Engine Motor & Engine Motor Motor Motor Motor - Small Motor Medium Motor Large - Small Medium Large ü ü ü ü ü ü - - Electricity Electricity Electricity ü ü ü ü 3 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

4 EVs are central in tension between national oil security and environmental damage 3 Million Barrels per Day Consumption Production United States Year Imports Imports Life cycle GHGs (g CO2 eq/km) CV HEV PHEV3 PHEV BEV Low carbon Average Average Natural gas Coal Life cycle electricity GHG intensity (g CO2 eq/kwh) Oil Consump&on Emissions Problem Impact Problem Impact Imports 4% from OPEC countries (US EIA 212) Imports 66% from Middle East, West Africa, former Soviet Union (Ma et al., 212) - PHEVs expected to use about 4 - % less petroleum than CVs (ANL 21) - BEVs use no oil! 2% of GHG, 4% of VOC, 77% of CO, 49% of NOx (US EIA 212) Depending on grid mix, PHEVs have potenfal to reduce GHG by 32% Similar, even worse for Large regional variafon: NOx & CO (Lang et al., GHGs may be reduced, 213) but PM 2.5 may increase 4 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

5 Research Questions How do existing preferences shape adoption of electrified vehicles in &? o Under what conditions would mainstream adoption of EVs occur? o What are the implications of existing preferences for national policy and global technology trajectories? 5 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

6 Measuring Consumer Preferences How do you get data on vehicles that don t exist yet? Our Approach: Choice-Based Conjoint Surveys 6 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

7 Stated Preference (SP) data from hypothetical survey choices 7 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

8 Fielding: Jul. 16 Aug. 16, 212 On the ground Partnered with State Information Center to field on the ground in Targeted 4 major cities: Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, & Chengdu Tier 1 cities Largest car markets Not rural Gov t focus for EVs Geographically diverse 35% of 21 total sales Chengdu 448 Respondents 15 Choice QuesFons Each 6,72 Choice QuesFons Beijing Shenzhen Shanghai 8 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

9 Fielding: Sept. 212 & Feb. 213 & Pi8sburgh Auto Show 283 Online Respondents 11 Auto Show Respondents 15 Choice QuesFons Each 5,7 Choice QuesFons Online car buyers identified through short screener survey, compensated $2.. Auto show car buyers taken at random, compensated with ipod raffle. Sample: 384 Car Respondents Full Sample Auto Show Sample Sample: 11 Auto Show Car Respondents Urban Suburban Rural 34.7% 29.6% 35.7% Urban 26.3% Suburban 41.1% Rural 32.6% 9 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

10 Weights added to match car-buying demographic Sample demographics compared to large new car buyer survey by Maritz (supplied by Ford) Variable Our Sample Weighted Sample Maritz Sample Our Sample Weighted Sample Maritz Sample Household Income Age Num Children Num Vehicles Daily VMT Annual VMT Household Size Years EducaFon Percent Female Percent Married Percent with No Children Percent College Graduates Percent First Time Buyers n 57.3 (29.3) 74.3 (28.7) 74.8 (27.3) 33.9 (12.7) 51 (14.8) 53.1 (15.4).6 (1.1) 1.4 (1.4).4 (.8) 1.8 (.8) 2 (.7) (1.4) 23.3 (11.4) ,2 (4,) 12,5 (4,) 11,4 (6,4) 2.7 (1.3) 2.7 (1.2) 2.5 (1.2) 7.2 (1.9) 7.9 (2.3) 7.2 (2.3) 35.3% 32.6% 39.3% 44.6% 68.9% 73.5% 72.1% 4.3% 75.% 52.3% 71.2% 53.7% 4.4% 1.3% , (15.7) 26.1 (18) 26.1 (17.6) 33.3 (1.6) 34.8 (7.8) 35.1 (7.8).6 (.6).7 (.6).7 (.6).4 (.6).5 (.7) , (6,) 3.3 (1.1) 3.3 (1.2) 3.2 (1) 5.9 (1.9) 6 (1.8) 5.9 (2) 39.4% 41.1% 28.7% 55.1% 7.2% 85.6% 52.2% 36.5% 36.4% 3.6% 33.1% 34.4% 65.4% 59.2% ,469 1 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

11 Quantifying Attribute Tradeoffs with Discrete Choice Models 11 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

12 Use random utility model to describe choice behavior Es&mated weigh&ng coefficient Observed a8ributes Unobservables U&lity to person n from choosing alterna&ve j =U nj = β X nj +ε j = 1,..., J nj Example: ε nj independently, idenfcally distributed extreme value X nj ε nj Price Color Brand Custom rims Fuel Economy Number of cup holders Goal of inference: Understand how observable product a8ributes influence consumer choices 12 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

13 more opposed to BEVs than WTP = Increasing barery size Increasing electric range β att β price Vehicle Technologies Vehicle Technology Baseline: CV HEV PHEV1 PHEV2 PHEV4 BEV75 BEV1 BEV Mean Willingness- to- Pay WTP ($1,) ($1,) consumers sensifve to limited electric range (Axsen & Kurani, 212). Most Chinese are first- Fme car buyers. Chinese more familiar with plug- in vehicles (2 3 million e- bikes currently on the ground). 13 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

14 WTP = PHEV2 BEV75 PHEV4 BEV1 Brand, Fuel BEV15 BEV75Economy, & Acceleration Important β att β price BEV1 BEV15 Brand Willingness-to-pay ($1,) Brand 2 1 Baseline: German 1 Willingness-to-pay ($1,) American Brand Baseline: German Japanese American Chinese Japanese SKorean Chinese SKorean Performance Willingness-to-pay ($1,) PHEV Fast Charge Ability Performance Performance Willingness-to-pay ($1,) BEV Fast Charge Ability Reduce Op. PHEV Cost Fast by Charge 5 cents Ability / mile Reduce - mph BEV Accel. Fast Time Charge by 4 Ability sec. Reduce Op. Cost by 5 cents / mile Reduce - mph Accel. Time by 4 sec Willingness-to-pay ($1,) -5 1 Willingness-to-pay ($1,) 14 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

15 Plug in vehicle share (%) Subsidies play an important role in plug-in vehicle attractiveness Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) Plug in Plug in vehicle vehicle share (%) share (%) hicle share (%) 15 August 5, Plug in vehicle share (%) PHEVs a8rac&ve in both countries PHEV- 11 vs. HEV (Toyota Prius) PHEV vs. 15 HEV 12 (Ford 15 C- Max) 2 PHEV1 1 vs. PHEV1 (Toyota vs. Prius) HEV (Toyota Prius) PHEV2 vs. PHEV2 (Ford vs. C Max) HEV (Ford C Max) Subsidy ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) 1 Subsidy 1 ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) PHEV4 vs. CV PHEV4 (BYD F3) vs. CV (BYD F3) PHEV4 vs. CV PHEV4 (Volt vs. vs. Cruze) CV (Volt vs. Cruze) Current Subsidies Current Subsidies 2 2 Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Subsidy ($1, Subsidy USD) ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, Subsidy USD) ($1, USD) PHEV4 BEVs Subsidy vs. CV PHEV4 more (BYD a8rac&ve vs. F3) CV (BYD in F3) PHEV4 than vs. CV PHEV4 (Volt vs. Cruze) CV (Volt vs. Cruze) 1 ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) 1 Subsidy 1 ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) Plug in Plug in vehicle vehicle share (%) share (%) BEV75 vs. CV BEV75 (Leaf vs. Versa) CV (Leaf vs. Versa) BEV1 vs. CV BEV1 (Ford Focus) vs. CV (Ford Focus) Current Subsidies Current Subsidies 2 Current Subsidies 2 Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Current Subsidies Subsidy ($1, Subsidy USD) ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, Subsidy USD) ($1, USD) BEV75 Subsidy vs. CV BEV75 (Leaf vs. Versa) CV (Leaf vs. Versa) BEV1 vs. CV BEV1 (Ford vs. Focus) CV (Ford Focus) 1 ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) 1 Subsidy 1 ($1, USD) Subsidy ($1, USD) hicle share (%) hicle share (%) Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) Plug in Plug in vehicle share vehicle (%) share (%) Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in / Current Subsidies BEV- 73 vs. CV (Nissan Leaf vs. Versa) Plug in vehicle share (%) Current Subsidies Plug in vehicle share (%) hicle share (%) Current Subsidies Current Subsidies BEV- 76 vs. CV (Ford Focus)

16 Policy: ê Oil Dependency, é Emissions? Preferences Preferences + Federal Subsidy Impacts (rela&ve to CVs) : PHEVs neutral BEVs hard sell PHEVs more arracfve BEVs sfll hard sell Oil consumpfon ê Emissions ê : No preference PHEVs vs. BEVs Less opposed to BEVs than BEVs more arracfve than PHEVs Oil consumpfon ê Emissions (é ê?) 3 Increase local (and global) emissions? Life cycle GHGs (g CO2 eq/km) CV HEV PHEV3 PHEV BEV Low carbon Average Average Natural gas Coal Life cycle electricity GHG intensity (g CO2 eq/kwh) Technological leadership?: Increased global incenfves for EVs (Reduced global emissions?) 16 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /

17 Acknowledgements This work is funded by: The NaFonal Science FoundaFon. Ford Motor Company. Special thanks to: Jiang Zhijie, Zheng Wei, and Zang Ye at the State InformaFon Center in Beijing. Center for Climate and Energy Decision Making. Contact Info Website: Wechat ( 微 信 ): jhelvy 17 August 5, 214 Subsidies & Consumer Preferences for EVs in /