consumer choice between gasoline and sugarcane...

29
“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern University May 2011, Iowa State (joint with Cristian Huse, Stockholm) Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanol &

Upload: others

Post on 20-Jan-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

“100%”

“33%”

Alberto Salvo, Northwestern University

May 2011, Iowa State

(joint with Cristian Huse, Stockholm)

Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanol

&

Page 2: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• Central policy aim: wean economies off fossil fuels (particularly oil derivatives)• Diversify energy sources• Curb emissions• Sustain growth

• Private road transport: large and growing sector• Gasoline-powered engine set to lose share• Alternative energy sources: electricity, biofuels

• How will motorists substitute away from century-old gasoline??• Price incentives required at pump or plug?• Research is scarce: RP studies cannot be conducted• Except Brazil: Gasoline × Alternative (Sugarcane Ethanol)

Motivation

Page 3: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Alternative hypotheses & Preview

An example (lab measurements)Fiat Palio ELX (Flex), 2 doors, 1.0 –8V, manual transm., AC, hydraulic steering, city driving cycle:Ethanol (E100): ke = 6.9 km/liter Gasoline (E22): kg = 9.9 km/liter

0 1

$/km Ethanol = $/km Gasoline

pe/pg

ke/kg≈.7

0 1

pe/pg

ke/kg≈.7

qe

qe

Ethanol preferencee.g., “green” types,

“home bias”

Ethanol aversione.g., “conventional” types, “range anxiety”

FIND: Observed + unobserved consumer heterogeneity:+20% E v. G in $/km → 20% E+20% G v. E in $/km → 20% G

State dependencee.g., short-run habit, inattentive, unwilling or unable to compare prices

Null: Perfect substitutes

Page 4: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• A natural experiment• Our opportune survey• Brief descriptive stats

• Empirical demand

• Demand estimates• Probits, Multinomial probits• Price sensitivity of “median” motorist• Elasticity matrices for subgroups: aged +65y• WTP for “greenness” and to relieve “range anxiety”

• A counterfactual• Planning the energy mix

• (Time permitting) Consumer “inattention” דtastes”

Outline of talk

Page 5: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

50

100

150

200

250

Ja

n-0

0

Ju

l-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ju

l-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ju

l-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ju

l-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ju

l-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ju

l-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ju

l-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ju

l-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ju

l-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ju

l-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Sug

ar:

R$ c

ents

/ lb

(B

razi

l C

PI

Mar-

2010)

Oil:

R$ /

bb

l (B

razi

l C

PI

Mar-

2010)

Oil, World Price (WTI) Sugar, World Price (ISA)

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Ja

n-0

0

Ju

l-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ju

l-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ju

l-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ju

l-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ju

l-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ju

l-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ju

l-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ju

l-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ju

l-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ju

l-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

R$ /

lite

r (B

razi

l C

PI

Mar-

2010)

Gasoline "C", Retail Price São Paulo city Ethanol, Retail Price São Paulo city

World prices × local prices, 2000-2010World prices*WTI R$/bbl &ISA R$ cents/lb

Prices at the pump in the city of São Paulo*R$/liter

v

2003, 2006 and...2010: The pump price of Ethanol peaks when the world price of Sugar peaks

* Constant prices in Brazilian Real (R$), base Mar/10. Sources: EIA, ISO, IBGE (IPCA), Bacen

Sugar (ISA)

Oil (WTI)

Ethanol (E100)

Gasoline (regular, E20-25)

Page 6: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

World/local sugar/ethanol markets: Arbitrage

Page 7: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

Ja

n-0

0

Ma

y-0

0

Se

p-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ma

y-0

1

Se

p-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ma

y-0

2

Se

p-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ma

y-0

3

Se

p-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ma

y-0

4

Se

p-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ma

y-0

5

Se

p-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Se

p-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Se

p-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Se

p-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ma

y-0

9

Se

p-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Demand responds: Market-level data

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

Ja

n-0

0

Ma

y-0

0

Se

p-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ma

y-0

1

Se

p-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ma

y-0

2

Se

p-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ma

y-0

3

Se

p-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ma

y-0

4

Se

p-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ma

y-0

5

Se

p-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Se

p-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ma

y-0

7

Se

p-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Ma

y-0

8

Se

p-0

8

Ja

n-0

9

Ma

y-0

9

Se

p-0

9

Ja

n-1

0

Ma

y-1

0

Fuel shipments to stations,Total Brazil*m3 / monthGasoline (E20-25)

Ethanol (E100)

Gasoline (E20-25)

Ethanol (E100)

FFVs introduced

Market-level study:- Consumer heterogeneity?- Poor data (e.g., FFV fleet size and usage)

Early 2010:Fuel mix shifts Ethanol→ Gasoline→ Ethanol

Fuel shipments to stations,State of São Paulo*m3 / month

* Source: ANP

Page 8: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• A natural experiment• Our opportune survey• Brief descriptive stats

• Empirical demand

• Demand estimates• Probits, Multinomial probits• Price sensitivity of “median” motorist• Elasticity matrices for subgroups: aged +65y• WTP for “greenness” and to relieve “range anxiety”

• A counterfactual• Planning the energy mix

• Consumer “inattention” × “tastes”

Outline of talk

Page 9: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Variation in relative per-liter prices, pe/pg5

06

07

08

09

05

06

07

08

09

0

-6-5-4-3-2-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -6-5-4-3-2-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 -6-5-4-3-2-10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Belo Horizonte Curitiba Porto Alegre

Recife Rio de Janeiro Sao Paulo

pe_rel_pg_p5 pe_rel_pg_p25

pe_rel_pg_p75 pe_rel_pg_p95

Pe

rce

nt

Number of weeks prior to (negative) or after (positive) week of January 25 2010

Graphs by city

Percentiles of the distribution across stations surveyed by the regulator in each city

Evolution of the relative price of ethanol in the weeks about the week of January 25 2010

5th, 25th, 75th, 95th percentiles of distribution of Ethanol-to-regular-Gasoline price ratio over 1st Qtr 2010 in 6 main cities (source: ANP)

Week of11 Jan 2010

Week of25 Jan

Week of29 Mar2010

Vertical lines:9 city-weeks in our survey

pe

/pg

(%)

Approximate parity ratio, pe /pg = 70%

Page 10: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• 6 cities: SP, CTB, REC, RJ, BH, POA• 9 city-weeks (3 weeks) in Jan and Mar 2010• 2160 FFV motorists in 180 retail fueling stations

• 12 motorists/station: pass filter & agree to interview• Private use (exclude cab and corporate use)• Week days + Saturday, rush + off-peak hours• Branded stations (29% BR, 27% Shell, 19% Ipiranga...)

• Instructed field representative to:• (Quietly) observe motorist’s choice (revealed preference)• E × G regular (plus, if available: G midgrade, G premium)• (Only then) approach motorist for short interview (“stated”

preference)• E.g.: Main reason(s) behind fuel choice (“spontaneous”

response); Car usage (km/week); Schooling

Survey design

Page 11: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern
Page 12: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Fueling stations visited

São Paulo

Curitiba

Rio de Janeiro

Porto Alegre

Belo Horizonte

Recife

Page 13: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• A natural experiment• Our opportune survey• Brief descriptive stats

• Empirical demand

• Demand estimates• Probits, Multinomial probits• Price sensitivity of “median” motorist• Elasticity matrices for subgroups: aged +65y• WTP for “greenness” and to relieve “range anxiety”

• A counterfactual• Planning the energy mix

• Consumer “inattention” × “tastes”

Outline of talk

Page 14: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Station-level data (selected)Variable January visits

Mean (N,Std.Dev.)March visitsMean (N,Std.Dev.)

Total visitsMean (N,Std.Dev.)

Ethanol price, pe (R$/liter) SP1 1.89 (20,.12)

SP2 1.88 (20,.14)

CTB 1.91 (20,.06)

REC 1.89 (20,.04)

RJ 2.18 (20,.15)

BH 2.06 (20,.11)

POA 2.32 (20,.10)

SP 1.46 (20,.14)

CTB 1.33 (20,.06)

Per-liter ethanol-to-regular-gasoline price ratio, pe/pg (%)

SP1 74% (20,3%)

SP2 75% (20,3%)

CTB 75% (20,2%)

REC 75% (20,2%)

RJ 81% (20,4%)

BH 85% (20,3%)

POA 90% (20,4%)

SP 59% (20,4%)

CTB 58% (20,2%)

Midgrade gasoline markup over regular (%)

104% (164,3%)

Number of nozzles 13 (180,6)

E:4,G:5,midgrG:3

Duration of station visit (hours)

2.5 (180,1.0)

Price variation:Opportunity

Page 15: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Motorist-level data (selected)

22 liters (< half tank)

Median: 1 visit/week

Page 16: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

40

60

80

100

Pe

r-lit

er

eth

ano

l p

rice r

ela

tive to

reg

ula

r g

asolin

e in %

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Ethanol's share of the aggregate energy embedded in the 12 FFV motorists’ purchases

40

60

80

100

Pe

r-lit

er

eth

ano

l p

rice r

ela

tive to

reg

ula

r g

asolin

e in %

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Share of FFV motorists who chose ethanol as their main energy source

Station visits in January 2010 Station visits in March 2010 Station visits in January 2010 Station visits in March 2010

Fuel choices aggregated to station level

Horizontal axis: “Unweighted” Ethanol share:

Vertical axis: pe/pg (per-liter prices)

Horizontal axis: “Weighted” Ethanol share:

Page 17: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

-20

02

04

0

Eth

an

ol-

to-g

asolin

e p

rice r

atio

min

us fu

el econ

om

y r

atio

in

1%

bin

s

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Empirical choice probability for ethanol

Controlling for “parity” differences across models

Choosing Ethanol when Gasoline is cheaper per km (i.e., where pei/kei > pgi/kgi)Vertical axis: 1 ppt bins:

E.g.: Motorist in Belo Horizonte in January, drove a VW Gol 1.0:88.2% ― 69.9% ≈ 18% → Enters the 18 ppt bin

(Equivalently:pei/kei ≈ 0.28 R$/kmpgi/kgi ≈ 0.22 R$/km0.06 R$/km, or 21%, discount represents624 R$ per year)

Choosing Gasoline when Ethanol is cheaper per km(i.e., where pei/kei < pgi/kgi)

pei/pgi― kei/kgi

Horizontal axis: Proportion of motorists in bin who chose ethanol as their dominant source of kilometers

Page 18: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• A natural experiment• Our opportune survey• Brief descriptive stats

• Empirical demand

• Demand estimates• Probits, Multinomial probits• Price sensitivity of “median” motorist• Elasticity matrices for subgroups: aged +65y• WTP for “greenness” and to relieve “range anxiety”

• A counterfactual• Planning the energy mix

• Consumer “inattention” × “tastes”

Outline of talk

Page 19: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Discrete choice specifications

• Binary choice models:

• Probit:• Logit:

Note 2: Relying on the moderate (within-route) price dispersion and consumers’ professed station loyalty, we ignore any substitution across stations

• Multinomial response models (multinomial probits):• Motorist i chooses fuel with maximal utility

and thus (to state one choice probability):

Note 1: Standard errors clustered at the station visit level

Page 20: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Multinomial probit marginal effects (other results omitted)

Age > 65y →

“Environmental.”→

Invoke engine →

Pricey car→

Heavy user→

“Home bias”

40<Age< 65y →

Page 21: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Considerable “unobserved” consumer heterogen.

0.2

.4.6

.81

Sim

ula

ted

ch

oic

e p

roba

bili

ty

.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/km

Energy-adjusted gasoline prices held constant at 0.246 R$/km regular and 0.256 R$/km midgrade

Fuel choice probabilities for median motorist in specification without city fixed effects

-.08

-.06

-.04

-.02

0

Marg

inal effe

ct o

n e

tha

no

l's c

ho

ice p

rob

ab

ility

x1

00

.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/km

Energy-adjusted gasoline prices held constant at 0.246 R$/km regular and 0.256 R$/km midgrade

Effect on the probability of choosing ethanol from raising the ethanol price by 0.01 R$/km

Ethanol

Regulargasoline

Midgradegasoline

Parity: pe /pg= 70%

pe /pg= 80%

pe /pg= 90%

pe /pg= 60%

pe /pg= 50%

Parity: pe /pg= 70%

pe /pg= 80%

pe /pg= 90%

pe /pg= 60%

pe /pg= 50%

Estimated marginal effect on ethanol and 95% confidence interval

• The “median” motorist’s price responsiveness• Male, 25-40y, some college, neither uses car heavily nor drives a pricey

model, invokes neither the environment, the engine nor range• Varying the ethanol price holding gasoline prices constant

• Baseline specification excluding city fixed effects (to conservatively reduce price range for switching)

Page 22: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

“Observed” heterogeneity: Hypothetical extremes

• “Ethanol fan”: Younger (<25y), some college, resides in Curitiba (capital of

ethanol-producing state), spontaneously invokes the environment

• “Gasoline fan”: Older (>65y), no more than primary, resides in Porto Alegre

(ethanol importer), heavy commuter, drives expensive model, invokes engine

• Baseline specification (hereafter)

0.2

.4.6

.81

Sim

ula

ted

ch

oic

e p

roba

bili

ty

.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/km

Energy-adjusted gasoline prices held constant at 0.246 R$/km regular and 0.256 R$/km midgrade

Fuel choice probabilities for ethanol fan

Ethanol

Regulargasoline

Midgradegasoline

Parity: pe /pg≈ 70%

pe /pg≈ 80%

pe /pg≈ 90%

pe /pg≈ 60%

pe /pg≈ 50%

0.2

.4.6

.81

Sim

ula

ted

ch

oic

e p

roba

bili

ty

.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/km

Energy-adjusted gasoline prices held constant at 0.246 R$/km regular and 0.256 R$/km midgrade

Fuel choice probabilities for gasoline fan

Ethanol

Regulargasoline

Midgradegasoline

Parity: pe /pg≈ 70%

pe /pg≈ 80%

pe /pg≈ 90%

pe /pg≈ 60%

pe /pg≈ 50%

Page 23: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Price elasticity matrices: Effect of age

• Evaluated at the median of regressors:

Recall per-liter pe/pg:74% 74%

Page 24: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Willingness to pay for “greenness”

• Median motorist in each of 3 cities with varying home bias• Horizontal shifts provide natural measures for:

• “Greenness”: Switch environ.-invoking reason on/off: .12 R$/km (.10 $/mi)0

.2.4

.6.8

1

Sim

ula

ted c

ho

ice

pro

bab

ility

.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/km

Energy-adjusted gasoline prices held constant at 0.246 R$/km regular and 0.256 R$/km midgrade

Ethanol choice probabilities for median motorists with and without environmental concerns

Ethanol

Parity: pe /pg≈ 70%

pe /pg≈ 80%

pe /pg≈ 90%

pe /pg≈ 60%

pe /pg≈ 50%

Curitiba

Rio de Janeiro

Porto Alegre

Page 25: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

A counterfactual: Planning the energy mix

• A planner in the Amazonian state of Pará (pop 7.6m, 2/3 urban)• Nation’s highest state sales tax on ethanol: 28% ICMS (v. 12% SP)• Consider a plan to wean PA motorists (FFVs 45%) off gasoline• Different scenarios, common message: Uptake of ethanol would

remain limited• Qualifier: Ignores long run changes (preferences, behavior, information)

Page 26: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Consumer “inattention” versus “tastes”

• Restrict sample to: “Observably-average” motorists facing sufficiently unequal prices across G and E• In such markets, which observable characteristics help explain the choice

of the dear fuel over a cheaper close substitute?

Page 27: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

Binary probit marginal effects: Choice of dear fuel

Larger stake, better informed? →

“Information diffusion effect”→

“Magnitude effect” →

Conscious of habit playing a role→

• Controls for gender, age, education and car price included but not significant

Page 28: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

• Direct & transparent empirical strategy uncovers substantial consumer heterogeneity in the choice among century-old gasoline and a less-established alternative motor fuel

• Likely to generalize to other markets---and perhaps even in a magnified way• This setting: G & E similarly distributed, comparably priced and

billed, almost identically consumed• Gasoline v. Alternative: Comparison can be less transparent!

• Observed heterogeneity• E.g., “Green” consumers do exist (not Prius status-seekers),

Consumer’s age, Confusion about engine aspects

• Unobserved heterogeneity• Salience-raising policy considerations

Takeaways

Page 29: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern

P R E Ç O G A S O L I N A

R$/litro 2.00 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.08 2.10 2.12 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.20 2.22 2.24 2.26 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.34 2.36 2.38 2.40 2.42 2.44 2.46 2.48 2.50 2.52 2.54 2.56 2.58 2.60 2.62 2.64 2.66 2.68 2.70 2.72 2.74 2.76 2.78 2.80 2.82 2.84 2.86 2.88 2.90 2.92 2.94 2.96 2.98 3.00

P 1.20 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.40 0.40

R 1.22 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41

E 1.24 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.41

Ç 1.26 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.42

O 1.28 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.43

1.30 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.43

E 1.32 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.44 0.44

T 1.34 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45

A 1.36 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45

N 1.38 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46

O 1.40 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47

L 1.42 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.47

1.44 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.48

1.46 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49

1.48 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.49

1.50 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50

1.52 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51

1.54 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51

1.56 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52

1.58 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.53

1.60 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.53

1.62 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.54

1.64 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.55 0.55 0.55

1.66 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.55

1.68 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.56 0.56

1.70 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57 0.57 0.57

1.72 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58 0.57

1.74 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.58 0.58

1.76 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59

1.78 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60 0.59

1.80 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.60 0.60

1.82 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 0.61

1.84 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62 0.61

1.86 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.62

1.88 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.63 0.63

1.90 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64 0.63

1.92 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65 0.64 0.64

1.94 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.65 0.65

1.96 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66 0.65

1.98 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.66

2.00 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.67 0.67

2.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68 0.67

2.04 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69 0.68 0.68

2.06 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69 0.69

2.08 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70 0.69

2.10 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71 0.70 0.70

2.12 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71 0.71

2.14 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72 0.71

2.16 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73 0.72 0.72

2.18 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.78 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.73

2.20 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.01 1.00 0.99 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.80 0.79 0.79 0.78 0.77 0.77 0.76 0.76 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.74 0.73

• Mail cost conversion tables to households (or mandate per-liter price ratio to be displayed at the pump)

Salience-raising example (among others)