![Page 1: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
“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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
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 $/km → 20% G
State dependencee.g., short-run habit, inattentive, unwilling or unable to compare prices
Null: Perfect substitutes
![Page 4: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
• A natural experiment• Our opportune survey• Brief descriptive stats
• Empirical demand
• Demand estimates• Probits, Multinomial probits• Price sensitivity of “median” motorist• Elasticity matrices for subgroups: aged +65y• WTP for “greenness” and to relieve “range anxiety”
• A counterfactual• Planning the energy mix
• (Time permitting) Consumer “inattention” דtastes”
Outline of talk
![Page 5: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
50
100
150
200
250
Ja
n-0
0
Ju
l-0
0
Ja
n-0
1
Ju
l-0
1
Ja
n-0
2
Ju
l-0
2
Ja
n-0
3
Ju
l-0
3
Ja
n-0
4
Ju
l-0
4
Ja
n-0
5
Ju
l-0
5
Ja
n-0
6
Ju
l-0
6
Ja
n-0
7
Ju
l-0
7
Ja
n-0
8
Ju
l-0
8
Ja
n-0
9
Ju
l-0
9
Ja
n-1
0
Sug
ar:
R$ 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
-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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
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$/km
Ethanol
Regulargasoline
Midgradegasoline
Parity: pe /pg= 70%
pe /pg= 80%
pe /pg= 90%
pe /pg= 60%
pe /pg= 50%
Parity: pe /pg= 70%
pe /pg= 80%
pe /pg= 90%
pe /pg= 60%
pe /pg= 50%
Estimated marginal effect on ethanol and 95% confidence interval
• The “median” motorist’s price responsiveness• Male, 25-40y, some college, neither uses car heavily nor drives a pricey
model, invokes neither the environment, the engine nor range• Varying the ethanol price holding gasoline prices constant
• Baseline specification excluding city fixed effects (to conservatively reduce price range for switching)
![Page 22: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
“Observed” heterogeneity: Hypothetical extremes
• “Ethanol fan”: Younger (<25y), some college, resides in Curitiba (capital of
ethanol-producing state), spontaneously invokes the environment
• “Gasoline fan”: Older (>65y), no more than primary, resides in Porto Alegre
(ethanol importer), heavy commuter, drives expensive model, invokes engine
• Baseline specification (hereafter)
0.2
.4.6
.81
Sim
ula
ted
ch
oic
e p
roba
bili
ty
.146 .196 .246 .296 .346 .396Energy-adjusted ethanol price in R$/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$/km midgrade
Fuel choice probabilities for gasoline fan
Ethanol
Regulargasoline
Midgradegasoline
Parity: pe /pg≈ 70%
pe /pg≈ 80%
pe /pg≈ 90%
pe /pg≈ 60%
pe /pg≈ 50%
![Page 23: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Price elasticity matrices: Effect of age
• Evaluated at the median of regressors:
Recall per-liter pe/pg:74% 74%
![Page 24: Consumer Choice Between Gasoline and Sugarcane Ethanolwordpress.engineering.iastate.edu/biobasedindustrycenter/files/2011/04/Salvo-Consumer...“100%” “33%” Alberto Salvo, Northwestern](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Willingness to pay for “greenness”
• Median motorist in each of 3 cities with varying home bias• Horizontal shifts provide natural measures for:
• “Greenness”: Switch environ.-invoking reason on/off: .12 R$/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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
• 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](https://reader033.vdocuments.us/reader033/viewer/2022041616/5e3b8f96c971f3149c58cefe/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
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)