DOCKETED

Docket Number:

15-IEPR-10

Project Title: Transportation

TN #: 203909

Document Title: Vehicle Attributes and Alternative Fuel Station Availability Metrics for Consumer Preference Modeling

Description: Energy Commission Workshop - March 19, 2015

Filer: Raquel Kravitz

Organization: California Energy Commission

Submitter Role: Commission Staff

Submission Date:

3/17/2015 1:11:35 PM

Docketed Date: 3/17/2015

NREL  is  a  na*onal  laboratory  of  the  U.S.  Department  of  Energy,  Office  of  Energy  Efficiency  and  Renewable  Energy,  operated  by  the  Alliance  for  Sustainable  Energy,  LLC.  

Vehicle  A)ributes  and  Alterna2ve  Fuel  Sta2on  Availability  Metrics  for  Consumer  Preference  Modeling      

Energy  Commission  Workshop  Sacramento,  California  March  19,  2015  

M.  Melaina,  Y.  Sun  and  A.  Brooker  Systems  Analysis  and  Integra*on  NREL  Transporta*on  Center  

2  

Presenta2on  Overview  

ZEV  Market  Adop*on  

Vehicle  AOributes  

Support  Policies  

Consumer  Preferences  

Fuel  Economy  and  Costs  

Examples:  •  AEO  2014  •  NRC  2013  

Performance  A)ributes  and  Market  Barriers    

Examples:  •  Range  limita*ons  •  Sta*on  availability  

Market  Impact    (Future  Work)  

Examples:  •  EVSE  influence  on  

PEV  sales  

3  

Background:  Key  Points  Vehicle  A)ributes    •  Incumbent  vehicles  will  con*nue  to  be  compe**ve  •  Alterna*ve  fuels  and  ZEVs  (BEVs,  PHEVs,  FCEVs)  have  the  poten*al  to  

provide  deep  carbon  reduc*ons  over  the  long  term  •  Technology  innova*on  trends  cannot  be  considered  separately  from  

market  transforma*on  policy  drivers  

Consumer  Preferences    •  Range  penal*es  may  be  significant  •  Sta*on  availability  (EVSE  &  hydrogen  sta*ons)    

o  May  be  an  important  barrier  for  BEV  adop*on,  as  well  as  a  limi*ng  factor  for  achieving  e-­‐miles  in  BEVs  and  PHEVs  

o  Cri*cal  market  barrier  for  FCEV  adop*on  o  Major  uncertain*es  around  consumer  responsiveness    

Review Draft March 13, 2015

4  

Vehicle  A)ributes  

ZEV  Market  Adop*on  

Vehicle  AOributes  

Support  Policies  

Consumer  Preferences  

Review Draft March 13, 2015

5  

Energy  Informa2on  Administra2on’s  Annual  Energy  Outlook  (AEO  2014)  

•  Independent  analysis  of  energy  markets,  data,  and  technology  trends  

•  AEO  2014  suggests  very  modest  market  growth  for  alterna*ve  light  duty  vehicles  (LDVs,  Cars  &  L.  Trucks)  

Source: AEO’s Interactive Table Viewer: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/

0"

2,000"

4,000"

6,000"

8,000"

10,000"

12,000"

14,000"

16,000"

18,000"

2011" 2016" 2021" 2026" 2031" 2036"

Total&Sales,&Cars&a

nd&Light&Trucks&(1000s)&

"""Fuel"Cell"

"""Gaseous"(Propane"and"Natural"Gas)"

"""Electric"Hybrid"

"""PlugCin"Electric"Hybrid"

"""Electric"

"""FlexCFuel"

"""TDI"Diesel"

"""ConvenIonal"Gasoline"0"

200"

400"

600"

800"

1,000"

1,200"

1,400"

1,600"

2011" 2016" 2021" 2026" 2031" 2036"

Total&Sales,&Cars&a

nd&Light&Trucks&(1000s)&

"""Fuel"Cell""""Gaseous"(Propane"and"Natural"Gas)""""Electric"Hybrid""""PlugCin"Electric"Hybrid""""Electric"

0.05% 0.5%

5%

1.1%

0.6%

Share in 2040

6  

LDV  Shares  for  Alternate  AEO  

2014  Cases:    High  Oil  Price  and  

GHG25  

Reference  Case    

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

2011# 2016# 2021# 2026# 2031# 2036#

Alterna(

ve*Fue

l*LDV*Market*S

hare*

###Fuel#Cell#

###Gaseous#(Propane#and#Natural#Gas)####Electric#Hybrid#

###PlugFin#Electric#Hybrid#

###Electric#

0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

2011# 2016# 2021# 2026# 2031# 2036#0%#

10%#

20%#

30%#

40%#

50%#

60%#

70%#

80%#

90%#

100%#

2011# 2016# 2021# 2026# 2031# 2036#

###Fuel#Cell#

###Gaseous#(Propane#and#Natural#Gas)#

###Electric#Hybrid#

###PlugFin#Electric#Hybrid#

###Electric#

High  Oil  Price  Case   GHG25  Case  

0.62% 0.95% 0.72% 1.16% 1.65% 1.31%

Very minor differences in Market Share by 2040 Source: AEO 2014

7  

Na2onal  Academy  of  Sciences  2013  report  on  reducing  LDV  GHG  emissions  80%  by  2050  (NRC  2013)  

Business  as  Usual  Scenario  

Report  explores  mul*ple  op*ons  for  deep  GHG  reduc*ons  in  LDV  fleet  

•  BAU scenario is similar to the AEO Reference Case

•  Other scenarios include emphasis on: biofuels, PEVs, FCEVs, and CNGVs

Source: NRC 2014

8  

Three  Scenarios  examine  success  with  electric-­‐drive  vehicles  

All three require significant vehicle subsidies to achieve market success

PEV Emphasis

FCEV Emphasis PEV, FCEV & Biofuels

Source: NRC 2014

9  

Only  some  NRC  Scenarios  meet  2050  80%  Goal  

Electric-drive Scenarios

Source: NRC 2014

10  

Major  Differences  between  AEO  &  NRC  Scenarios  

Scenario  Goals  •  AEO  goal  is  objec*ve  projec*ons  •  NRC  goal  is  to  examine  2050  GHG  80%  goal  Policy  Context  •  AEO:  primarily  exis*ng  policies  •  NRC  ar*culated  and  es*mated  the  magnitude  of  the  (very  

aggressive)  policies  required  to  meet  the  GHG  2050  goal      Technology  Trends  •  AEO:  Market  viability  without  major  transporta*on  policy  

drivers  or  major  innova*on  improvements  •  NRC:  Very  aggressive  performance  and  cost  improvements  for  

LDVs  (midrange  and  op*mis*c)    

11  

Comparing  Fuel  Economy  Reference  Cases  (cars)  

0"20"40"60"80"

100"120"140"160"180"200"

2010" 2015" 2020" 2025" 2030" 2035" 2040"

Compact(cars(fuel(efficiencies((MPG)(

BEV200"

BEV100"

PHEV40"

PHEV10"

HEVgasoline"

FCEV"

New"car"(average)"

0"20"40"60"80"

100"120"140"160"180"200"

2010" 2015" 2020" 2025" 2030" 2035" 2040"

Midsize'cars'fuel'efficiencies'(MPG)'

BEV200"

BEV100"

PHEV40"

PHEV10"

HEVgasoline"

FCEV"

New"car"(average)"

0"

20"

40"

60"

80"

100"

120"

140"

160"

180"

200"

2010" 2015" 2020" 2025" 2030" 2035" 2040" 2045" 2050"

Passenger(cars(fuel(efficiencies((MPG)(3(Ref(

BEV100"

FCV"

PHEV40"

HEV"

ICE"

AEO

AEO NRC Ref

BEVs  are  significantly  higher  in  NRC  Ref  Case.  FCEVs  do  not  improve  in  

AEO  due  to  lack  of  growth.  

New Car = average across all car sizes Passenger Car = all cars

12  

!$#!!

!$10!!

!$20!!

!$30!!

!$40!!

!$50!!

!$60!!

!$70!!

!$80!!

!$90!!

!$100!!

2010!2015!2020!2025!2030!2035!2040!2045!2050!

Passenger(cars((2012$,000's):(PEV(Emphasis(Case(:(Midrange([M](and(Op@mis@c([O](Costs(

BEV!100![M]!

BEV!100![O]!

FCV![M]!

FCV![O]!

PHEV!40![M]!

PHEV!40![O]!

HEV![M]!

ICE![M]!

!$#!!

!$10!!

!$20!!

!$30!!

!$40!!

!$50!!

!$60!!

!$70!!

!$80!!

!$90!!

!$100!!

2010!2015!2020!2025!2030!2035!2040!2045!2050!

Passenger(cars((2012$,000's):(Reference(Case(6(Midrange([M](and(Op>mis>c([O](Costs(

BEV!100![M]!

BEV!100![O]!

FCV![M]!

FCV![O]!

PHEV!40![M]!

PHEV!40![O]!

HEV![M]!

ICE![M]!

$0#

$10#

$20#

$30#

$40#

$50#

$60#

$70#

$80#

$90#

$100#

2010# 2015# 2020# 2025# 2030# 2035# 2040#

Midsize'cars'prices'(2012$,000's)'

FCEV#

BEV200#

PHEV40#

BEV100#

PHEV10#

HEV#(dsl)#

HEV#(gsln)#

New#car#(wt.#ave.)#

Car  Prices  

NRC Ref

AEO

•  Reference  cases  above  have  limited  market  growth  in  BEVs,  FCEVs,  PHEVs  

•  NRC  PEV  Emphasis  case  at  right  achieves  rapid  market  growth  and  correspondingly  rapid  cost  reduc*ons  

•  Even  FCEV  costs  decline  due  to  some  market  growth  

NRC PEV

13  

Vehicle  prices  vary  between  scenarios  •  Varia*ons  are  based  upon  cost  mul*plier  penal*es  that  decline  

with  increasing  economies  of  scale  and  learning  •  Scenarios  includes  subsidies  to  accelerate  market  growth,  resul*ng  

in  movement  down  cost  curves  at  different  rates  •  The  volume  of  subsidies  required  to  achieve  market  success  is  very  

sensi*ve  to  these  mul*plier  penal*es  

!$#!!

!$10!!

!$20!!

!$30!!

!$40!!

!$50!!

!$60!!

!$70!!

!$80!!

!$90!!

!$100!!

2010!2015!2020!2025!2030!2035!2040!2045!2050!

Passenger(cars((2012$,000's):(PEV(Emphasis(Case(:(Midrange([M](and(Op@mis@c([O](Costs(

BEV!100![M]!

BEV!100![O]!

FCV![M]!

FCV![O]!

PHEV!40![M]!

PHEV!40![O]!

HEV![M]!

ICE![M]!

!$#!!

!$10!!

!$20!!

!$30!!

!$40!!

!$50!!

!$60!!

!$70!!

!$80!!

!$90!!

!$100!!

2010!2015!2020!2025!2030!2035!2040!2045!2050!

Passenger(cars((2012$,000's):(FCV(Emphasis(Case(;(Midrange([M](and(OpAmisAc([O](Costs(

BEV!100![M]!

BEV!100![O]!

FCV![M]!

FCV![O]!

PHEV!40![M]!

PHEV!40![O]!

HEV![M]!

ICE![M]!

NRC PEV

NRC FCV

14  

“Fully  Learned”  and  “At  Scale”  costs  are  achieved  only  with  significant  subsidies  and  policies    

•  These  cost  differen*als  from  the  baseline  ICE  vehicle  cost  occur  ager  all  learning  and  scale  reduc*ons  have  been  achieved  

•  Volume  of  subsidies  depends  upon  area  under  learning  curves,  the  effec2veness  of  market  support  policies,  and  consumers  preferences  

Incremental Car Costs - Midrange

Incremental Car Costs - Optimistic

Source: NRC 2014

15  

Consumer  Preferences  

ZEV  Market  Adop*on  

Vehicle  AOributes  

Support  Policies  

Consumer  Preferences  

16  

Example:  What  is  the  penalty  for  limited  range  from  a  consumer  perspec2ve?  

•  NREL’s  ADOPT  consumer  preference  model  es*mates  market  share  using  coefficients  derived  from  empirical  sales  data  

•  Range  penalty  is  based  upon  limited  data,  but  aligns  well  with  Leaf  sales  

Source: Brooker, A. (2015) ADOPT: A Historically Validated Light Duty Vehicle Consumer Choice Model, SAE World Congress, 2015 (forthcoming)

17  

Stated  Preference  Survey  NREL  and  PA  ConsulHng  study  •  Developed  and  fielded  3  discrete  choice  

surveys,  each  improving  on  the  previous  design  •  Final  survey  gave  best  results  •  Relied  upon  in-­‐house  computer  survey  panels    Survey  Design  •  Sequence  of  10  vehicle  purchase  decisions,  with  

aOributes  shown  side-­‐by-­‐side:  Vehicle  purchase  price,  fuel  cost,  and  sta%on  coverage  at  three  geographic  scales:  local,  regional,  na%onal  

•  Algorithm  varies  aOribute  levels  based  upon  previous  responses  

•  Dedicated  vehicle  for  generic  alterna*ve  fuel  •  ~500  surveys  completed  in  each  major  city:    

Los  Angeles,  Atlanta,  Minneapolis  and  SeaOle  Source: Melaina, M., J. Bremson, K. Solo (2012). Consumer Convenience and the Availability of Retail Stations as a Market Barrier for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Presented at the 31st USAEE/IAEE North American Conference, Austin, Texas, November 4-7, 2012. Available online: http://www.nrel.gov/publications/

18  

Example  of  Local  Coverage  Maps:  Los  Angeles  

Four  Levels:  (1)  No  Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons,  (2)  sparse,  (3)  many,  (4)  same  as  gasoline  

Gasoline  Sta*ons  

Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons  

Source: Melaina, Bremson and Solo (2012).

19  

Example  of  Local  Coverage  Maps:  Los  Angeles  

Four  Levels:  (1)  No  Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons,  (2)  sparse,  (3)  many,  (4)  same  as  gasoline  

Gasoline  Sta*ons  

Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons  

Source: Melaina, Bremson and Solo (2012).

20  

Example  of  Local  Coverage  Maps:  Los  Angeles  

Four  Levels:  (1)  No  Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons,  (2)  nearby  interstates,  (3)  many  interstates,  (4)  all  interstates.  

Gasoline  Sta*ons  

Alt  Fuel  Sta*ons  

Source: Melaina, Bremson and Solo (2012).

21  

Study  Results:  Quan2fied  Stated  Preferences  for  Sta2on  Availability  and  Compared  to  Ra2onal  Behavior  Model  Results  

Stated  Preference  Es2mates  Survey  results  suggest  that  household  consumers  may  perceive  the  following  (cumula*ve)  purchase  price  penal*es:  •  Local:  $750  to  $4,000  for  retail  sta*on  coverage  at  1  to  10  percent  of  exis*ng  

gasoline  sta*ons  within  metropolitan  (urban)  areas.    •  Regional:  $1,500  to  $3,000  for  limited  medium-­‐distance  coverage,  defined  as  5  

to  100  sta*ons  within  150  miles  of  the  metro  area  •  Interstate:  $2,000  to  $9,000  for  a  lack  of  long-­‐distance  coverage  along  

interstates  connec*ng  urban  areas      

Ra2onal  Actor  Es2mates  A  parallel  analysis  of  urban  travel  *me  penal*es  for  a  “ra*onal”  decision  maker  (addi*onal  *me  needed  to  drive  to  sta*ons  in  a  sparse  network):  •  The  “Ra*onal  model”  based  upon  a  clustering  algorithm  and  travel  *mes  

suggests  $250  to  $1,500  for  coverage  at  1%  to  10%  of  exis*ng  sta*ons.  •  This  is  roughly  3-­‐4  *mes  less  than  the  stated  preference  penalty  for  local  

availability  within  urban  areas.    

22  

Local  Sta2on  Availability  Penal2es  

•  Cost  Penalty  Es*mates  Against  the  Purchase  Price  of  a  New  Dedicated  AFV  for  Limited  Urban  Area  Sta*on  Availability.    

•  Graph  shows  both  Survey  Results  and  Cluster  Simula*ons    

!Source: Melaina, Bremson and Solo (2012).

23  

Support  Policies  

ZEV  Market  Adop*on  

Vehicle  AOributes  

Support  Policies  

Consumer  Preferences  

24  

Policy  Effec2veness:  Sufficient  Empirical  data?  

•  As  new  market  data  become  available,  sta*s*cal  correla*ons  between  EVSE  deployments  and  vehicle  purchases  should  emerge  

•  Sta*s*cal  fits  must    take  into  account  a    variety  of  factors,    including  state  and    local  incen*ves,    inherent  consumer    vehicle  preferences,    etc.    

•  Map  at  right  shows  DCFC  sta*ons  with  respect  to  likely    early  adopter  metric  (EAM)  results  

Source: NREL Infrastructure Market Assessment Report for CEC. Forthcoming

25  

Recommenda2ons  for  future  work  

Future  Work  on  Consumer  Preferences  New  informa*on  on  consumer  responsiveness  may  be  revealed  by:    •  (1)  Examining  market  trends  associated  with  EVSE  infrastructure  •  (2)  Developing  improved  survey  methods  that  take  into  account  

sta*on  availability  as  a  consumer  choice  factor  

Future  Work  on  Policy  Support  Mechanisms  •  Explicit  representa*ons  of  fueling  infrastructure  may  improve  market  

projec*ons  and  inform  market  support  policies  •  Interac*ons  or  tradeoffs  between  vehicle  range  and  EVSE  type  and  

availability  may  influence  policy  effec*veness  

26  

Ques2ons?