Factors Affecting PEV Sales in California:2010-2015

J.R. DeShazo, Tamara Sheldon, Richard Carson, Samuel Krumholz

ARB Research Seminar: September 12, 2017 Sacramento, California

Overview of Topics

1. PEV sales in California: temporal & spatial 2. Factors predicting PEV Sales3. Rebate uptake and new vehicle introductions4. Effects of HOV-lane access on PEV sales5. Demand for BEVs and PHEVs*6. Effects of rebate policies on PEV sales7. Correlation of gas prices with PEV sales

*The data set used and the findings of this project relate to state of the market and the CVRP program circa 2013 and are not representative of the current market or program.

2

Selected High-level Findings

• Growth has been rapid but spatially concentrated.

• Have not yet reached typical middle income hybrid buyers.

• HOV-lane access has had the largest effect compared to other policies but varies spatially.

• Rebate policies have had positive influence on sales.

• Falling gas prices are negatively correlated with PEV sales.

3

Data Behind the Study

• PEV Sales only California 2010-2015– Census tract, county, region– HIS, AFDC, ACS, State voting data

• HOV analysis based through 2014• New Car Buyer Survey 2014 State-wide• Gas Prices and PEV Sales 2010-2015

4

Broader Context

5

Cumulative U.S. plug-in electric vehicles sold thru Feb'14

Dec-10 May-11 Oct-11 Mar-12 Aug-12 Jan-13 Jun-13 Nov-130

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

All-battery EVsPlug-in-hybrid EVs

HIS Data, 2010-14 6

Takeaway: PEV sales have grown rapidly. California has experienced

77% annual growth rates from 2010-2015.

7

Dec-10 May-11 Oct-11 Mar-12 Aug-12 Jan-13 Jun-13 Nov-130%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%Percent of US cumulative plug-in vehicle sales thru Feb'14

All-battery EVsPlug-in-hybrid EVs

HIS Data, 2010-14 8

Takeaway: Battery Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles

comprise roughly equal shares of the early market.

9

10

Takeaway: Automakers have supplied over 28 PEV models within

the first five years.

11

Among higher-income groups, the rate of sales of PEVs is approaching

that of hybrids (HEVs)

12

13

14

15

Takeaway: Households in highest SES quartiles are purchasing PEVs at

rates comparable to the rates that the general population has

purchased hybrids.

16

PEV sales have been persistently spatially concentrated

17

18

Takeaway: PEV purchases are concentrated in a few regions.

19

20

21

Takeaway: PEV adoption varies within metropolitan areas.

22

Household income and wealth are strongly and positively associated

with early PEV sales

23

24

Takeaways: Neighborhoods with higher incomes, wealth, education, and access to HOV lanes tend to be positively associated with PEV sales.

25

26

27

Takeaways: Neighborhoods purchasing used PEVs tend to have higher income

and education but less so than neighborhoods purchasing new PEVs.

28

HOV Lane Access Policies Have Boosted PEV Sales

29

Overview

What is the impact of HOV policies on PEV sales?✤ First causal study✤ Geographic marginal impacts✤We find access to 6, 20, and 100 miles of nearby HOV lanes leads to 1, 3, and 10 additional PEV registrations in a census tract

~25% of California PEV registrations during 2010-2013 were a result of the HOV lane policy

30

31

Takeaway: Access to HOV lanes varies systematically with metro

areas.

32

33

Takeaway: Neighborhood adoption of PEVs is not correlated with access

to HOV lanes.

34

35

Takeaway: PEV adoption is higher in areas with greater HOV access.

36

New Car Buyer Market Holds Diverse Preferences for BEVs and PHEVs

37

New car buyer survey by UCLA in 2013• 1261 prospective new car buyers in California

• Household and vehicle data

• Vehicle choice experiments» Allow us to identify preferences for vehicles that do not currently exist but are

likely to in the future

» Allow us to identify preferences along different dimensions of heterogeneity

Caltrans “2010-2012 California Household Travel Survey”• Cross-check representative sample of new car buyers

• Cross-check vehicle class share with revealed preference data

38

State and Federal differentiated BEV and PHEV Rebates are critical factors in

the early market growth

32% express smallest disutility for BEVs while finding PHEVs comparable in utility to ICEs

42% of respondents express large disutility for BEVs while finding PHEVs comparable in utility to ICEs.

26% express large disutility for both BEVs and PHEVs.

Three major consumer segments for BEVs and PHEVs

40

Takeaway: There are three distinct market segments. Two of these

segments require larger rebates for BEVs compared to PHEVs to induce

comparable sales of both.

41

Rebate Policies Have Boosted PEV Sales

42

Max Level of Incentives Across States, 2014

$0

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

WV CO GABEV

IL LA MD CABEV

MA TX PA SCPHEV

CAPHEV

UT

Maximum Possible Incentive Per Vehicle

43

Takeaway: State PEV rebates levels vary widely.

Routinely use rebates, cash back, and discounts to sell vehicles and capture market share.

Some past deals available to consumers….

Automakers and Dealers

45

Get up to $3,000 Factory Cash Back on a New 2015 Avalon.

46

Research Questions for PEV market in 2014:How many additional PEV sales are associated

with the 2014 CVRP program?

How can better targeting of the 2014 CVRP program increase the cost effectiveness and improve equity outcomes?

47

Policy Simulations

1. Estimate empirical model using survey data

2. Predict PEV sales using representative sample of new car buyers and currently available conventional vehicles and PEVs

3. Compare predictions as PEV prices are reduced by differing rebate amounts and policy designs

48

CVRP Policy Comparison

1. Baseline (2013) policy

2. Price cap for vehicle eligibility

3. Income-tested policies

49

Compare over 3-year policy period:

• Total additional PEVs purchased

• Cost per induced vehicle purchase

• Total program cost

• Equity: distribution of rebate funding across consumer income classes

(*Income defined for individuals not households.)

Judging the Performance of Alternative CVRP Policies

50

California Baseline Rebate Policy• Rebate is estimated to induce 9,699 PEV purchases

• Higher preference for PHEVs over BEVs

• Lower income classes have a lower preference for both PHEVs and BEVs

51

California Baseline Rebate Policy• 42% of the value of the rebates is allocated to consumers making less than $75,000

52

Targeting of Rebates to Lower-Income Households Would Increase

Cost Effectiveness and Equity Outcomes

53

Target consumers who otherwise would not have purchased PEVs.– Consumers have a lower preference for BEVs than

PHEVs so offer relatively more generous rebates for BEVs.

Target consumers who are more responsive to the rebates offered.– Lower income rather than higher income consumers.

Principles for more cost effective rebates

54

Income-Tested Rebate Levels• One of the most cost-effective policies and one of lowest total program costs

• 100% of rebates allocated to households with incomes less than $75,000

• Superior to baseline policy

55

Falling Gas Prices are Statistically Correlated with Falling PEV Sales

56

57

Takeaway: Higher gas prices are associated with higher PEV sales.

58

59

Takeaway: Gas price increases are expected to increase PEV sales but

the magnitude is uncertain.

60

Concluding remarks

• Spatially purchase patterns follow new car buyer trends.

• Strong support for CVRP and EFMP Plus-Up Reforms.

• Need for fuller representation of PEVs in larger body type vehicles.

61