Fetchdoc PHP

UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGAN
PluginHybridElectricVehicles
RichardCurtin,YevgenyShrago,andJamieMikkelsen
UniversityofMichigan
ThisresearchwassupportedbyfundsprovidedbythePacificNorthwestNationalLaboratoryandthe
UniversityofMichiganTransportationResearchInstitute.SpecialthanksgotoLeeSlezak,Michael
KintnerMyer,PeterSweatman,JohnSullivan,WalterMcManus,andChristaMcDermott.
TheUniversityofMichigan,2009
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
University of Michigan
Page2
TableofContents
ListofCharts.................................................................................................................................................5
ListofTables.................................................................................................................................................6
ExecutiveSummary.......................................................................................................................................7
Introduction................................................................................................................................................11
HybridElectricVehicles...........................................................................................................................12
StudyDesignandMethods.........................................................................................................................15
HybridPurchaseProbabilities.....................................................................................................................18
CorrelatesofPurchaseProbabilitiesforHybridVehicles.......................................................................19
PriceElasticityandPayoffPeriods..........................................................................................................20
ImpactofCurrentEconomicEnvironment.............................................................................................22
ElectricityPrices..................................................................................................................................23
FuelCostsandFuelEfficiency.................................................................................................................24
GasPriceExpectations........................................................................................................................24
TotalAmountSpentonGasoline........................................................................................................25
VehicleMPG........................................................................................................................................25
MilesDriven........................................................................................................................................26
HighwayMiles.....................................................................................................................................26
ImpactofCurrentVehicleOwnership....................................................................................................27
TypeofVehicle....................................................................................................................................27
NeworUsedPurchase........................................................................................................................27
AgeofVehicle.....................................................................................................................................28
NumberofHouseholdVehicles..........................................................................................................28
ImpactofHouseholdDemographics.......................................................................................................29
AgeofHouseholder............................................................................................................................29
IncomeofHousehold..........................................................................................................................29
EducationofHouseholder..................................................................................................................30
Gender................................................................................................................................................30
Page3
HomeOwnership................................................................................................................................31
Region.................................................................................................................................................31
RechargingHybridVehicles....................................................................................................................32
RegularParkingPlace..........................................................................................................................33
AccesstoElectricalOutlet...................................................................................................................33
ImpactonElectricalGrid.....................................................................................................................34
AvoidingGasStations.........................................................................................................................34
AllElectricRange................................................................................................................................35
AttitudestowardtheEnvironmentandTechnology..............................................................................35
MainAdvantageofPHEVs..................................................................................................................36
DemonstrationofEnvironmentalCommitment.................................................................................36
HigherProductPrices,LowerOperatingCosts...................................................................................37
EarlyAdoptionofNewTechnology.....................................................................................................38
MultivariateModelsofHybridPurchaseProbabilities...........................................................................38
VehicleCharacteristics........................................................................................................................39
ComparativeStrengthofFactors........................................................................................................42
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................43
Bibliography................................................................................................................................................46
Appendix:NonSurveyData.......................................................................................................................48
EstimatesofVehicleFuelEfficiency....................................................................................................48
GasPricesattheTimeoftheSurvey..................................................................................................49
ElectricityPricesattheTimeoftheSurvey........................................................................................49
Page4
ListofCharts
Chart1:PurchaseProbabilitiesamongAllVehicleOwningHouseholds
Chart2:PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVswith75%FuelSavings
Chart3:ResponsivenessofPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiestoPrice
Chart4:PayoffPeriodGivenRespondentsActualGasExpenses
Chart5:PayoffPeriodGivenRespondentsExpectedGasExpenses
Chart6:ActualGasPricesbyMonthofDataCollection
Chart7:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyGasPricesatTimeofSurvey
Chart8:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyActualRetailPriceofElectricity
Chart9:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyGasPricesExpectedin5Years
Chart10:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMonthlyCostofGasoline
Chart11:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyVehicleMPG
Chart12:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyDailyMilesDriven
Chart13:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyPercentHighwayMilesDriven
Chart14:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyTypeofCurrentVehicle
Chart15:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyNew/UsedVehiclePurchase
Chart16:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAgeofCurrentVehicle
Chart17:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyNumberofVehiclesOwned
Chart18:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAgeSubgroups
Chart19:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyIncomeSubgroups
Chart20:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyEducationSubgroups
Chart21:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyGenderofRespondent
Chart22:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyHomeownership
Chart23:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRegionofResidence
Chart24:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyResidentialArea
Chart25:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRegularParkingLocation
Chart26:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAvailableOutlettoRecharge
Chart27:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRechargingPreference
Chart28:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyDesiretoAvoidGasStations
Chart29:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMinimumAllElectricRange
Chart30:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMainAdvantageofPHEVs
Chart31:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnvironmentalCommitment
Chart32:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyBuyingFluorescentBulbs
Chart33:PurchaseProbabilitiesbyFirstAdopterPreference
Charts3437:RegressionModelsofPHEVPurchaseProbabilities
Page5
ListofTables
Table1:PurchaseProbabilitiesforHybridVehicles
Table2:HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnergyCosts
Table2a:HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyVehicleCharacteristics
Table2b:HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyDemographicSubgroups
Table2c:HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyChargingCharacteristics
Table2d:HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnvironmentalPreferences
Table3:HybridVehicleChangeinProbabilitieswithChangeinCostofVehiclesbyEnergyCosts
Table3a:ChangeinPHEVProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyVehicleCharacteristics
Table3b:ChangeinPHEVProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyDemographicSubgroup
Table3c:ChangeinPHEVProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyChargingCharacteristics
Table3d:ChangeinPHEVProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyEnvironmentalAttitudes
Table4:MedianPayBackPeriodsforHybridVehiclesBasedonCurrentMonthlyGasolineExpenditures
Table4a:MedianPayBackPeriodsforHybridVehiclesbyDemographicSubgroups,FiveYearGasPrice
Expectations;3%DiscountRate
Table4b:MedianPayBackPeriodsforHybridVehiclesbyVehicleCharacteristics,FiveYearGasPrice
Expectations;3%DiscountRate
Table5:RegressionModelsofHybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilities
Table6:PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
Table7:PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:25%FuelSavingsand$1,500Premium
Table8:PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
Table9:PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:75%FuelSavingsand$2,500Premium
Table10:PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:75%FuelSavingsand$5,000Premium
Table11:PurchaseProbabilities,PHEVs:75%FuelSavingsand$10,000Premium
Table12:FiveYearGasPriceExpectationsamongDemographicSubgroups
Table13:MonthlyExpendituresonGasolineamongDemographicSubgroups
Table14:AverageDailyMilesDrivenAmongDemographicSubgroups
Table15:PercentofTotalMileageDrivenonHighwaysamongDemographicSubgroups
Table16:LocationWhereRegularlyParkAmongDemographicSubgroups
Table17:AvailabilityofStandardElectricalOutlettoPlugInPHEV
Table18:WillingnesstoRechargePHEVinEveningHoursamongDemographicSubgroups
Table19:AdvantageofRechargingPHEVatHomeInsteadofRefuelingatGasStationbyDemographic
Subgroups
Table20:MinimumAllElectricRangeforDailyNeedsAmongDemographicSubgroups
Table21:MainAdvantageofPHEVsamongDemographicSubgroups
Table22:PurchaseofPHEVDemonstratesEnvironmentalCommitmentamongDemographicSubgroups
Table23:FrequencyPurchasedFluorescentLightBulbsamongDemographicSubgroups
Table24:WillingnesstoOwnNewTechnologyamongDemographicSubgroups
Page6
ExecutiveSummary
Vehicle purchases are important economic decisions for individual consumers and have
importantconsequencesforthenationasawhole.Consumerstakecapitalandoperatingcostsaswell
as a range of noneconomic factors into account when making their purchase decisions. The major
operating cost for vehicles is the consumers expenditure on gasoline, which is determined by the
vehicles fuel efficiency, daily miles driven and the price of gasoline. Plugin hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEV) represent a significant change in technology with which most consumers are currently
unfamiliar.PHEVsareexpectedtoreducethecostoffuelbyrechargingbatteriesfromelectricaloutlets,
but the vehicles are anticipated to cost significantly more than a conventional vehicle. Recharging
batteries would require a significant shift in consumer habits and in the infrastructure of the nations
electricalgrid.Importantly,PHEVsareexpectedtoreduceoverallcarbondioxideemissions,counteract
global warming, and contribute to the energy independence of the nation. Environmental and other
noneconomicattitudesrepresentapotentiallyimportantcomponentofPHEVpurchasedecisions.
The goal of this research was to assess the current state of knowledge and opinions about
PHEVs among U.S. consumers. Interviews were conducted from July to November 2008 with a
nationally representative sample of 2,513 adults. Questions about their potential interest in hybrid
electricvehiclessupplementedquestionsabouttheircurrentvehicles,theirdrivinghabits,mileageand
gasoline expenditures, parking location as well as official government data on the cost of gasoline,
electricity, and the MPG of the vehicle they drove. Data on the economic and demographic
characteristics of the household were supplemented by a range of environmental and other non
economicattitudestowardthenewtechnologyembodiedinPHEVs.Thepurposeofthisstudywasto
examine the conditions under which consumers would purchase a PHEV. Rather than focus on first
adopters,theresearchfocusedonthepotentialpoolofpurchasersinthefirstseveralyearsafterthe
introductionofPHEVs.
Hybridelectricvehiclesincludeanelectricmotorandabatterypackinadditiontoaninternal
combustion engine. There are two classes of hybrid designs that differ in the way the vehicle uses
gasolineandelectricalpower.Inaparallelhybrid,gasolineisprovidedtoaconventionalengineand
thebatteriessupplypowertoanelectricmotor.Thevehiclecanbepoweredbyeithertheengineorthe
electricmotor;thevehicleitselfrechargesthebatteriesduringnormaldriving.Inaserieshybridthe
electric motors and gasoline engine are linked in line; the electric motor powers the vehicle and the
gasolineenginesonlyfunctionistorechargethebatterywhenanelectricaloutletisnotavailable.The
termshybridelectricvehicleorHEVisusedtoindicateaparallelhybridandthetermpluginhybrid
electricvehicleorPHEVtoindicateaserieshybrid.
Thisresearchprojectfocusedonadeterminationofwhichfactorswouldfacilitatesalesofplug
inhybridelectricvehiclesandwhichfactorswouldrepresentbarrierstothesuccessfulintroductionof
these vehicles. A successful introduction is based on more than just sales in the first few years. A
successfulintroductionimpliesanupwardtrajectoryinsalesthatenablescostreductionsthoughmass
production and in turn fosters even greater investments in advanced technology that acts to lower
pricesandincreaseperformanceevenmoreinthefuture.Needlesstosay,thesuccessfulintroduction
Page7
ofpluginhybridelectricvehiclesisanecessarybutnotasufficientconditionfortheultimatesuccessof
this new technology. Other competing technologies will continue to challenge plugin hybrids for
marketsupremacy.
Thesurveyfoundagooddealofinterestamongconsumersforpluginhybridelectricvehiclesas
well as a good deal of resistance based on the estimated cost of this new technology. Consumer
acceptance was not solely determined by costs, however, as environmental and other noneconomic
factorsinfluencedthelikelihoodoffuturepurchasesofhybridelectricvehicles.Nonetheless,thelong
termsuccessofthesevehiclesinthemarketplacewilldependonwhetherthistechnologycanprovidea
highervaluetoconsumerswhencomparedwithalternativetechnologies.Providinggreaterconsumer
valueincludesthereliability,durability,andconvenienceofthenewtechnologyaswellasfuelsavings
andthepurchasepriceofthevehicle. Theseare complexjudgments that cannotbefullycapturedin
populationsurveysbeforethevehicleshavebeenactuallyproduced.
Pluginhybridelectricvehiclesweredescribedtosurveyrespondentsingeneralterms,withthe
implicitassumptionthatthesevehicleswerelikeconventionalvehiclesineverywayexceptforhowthe
vehicle was powered and refueled. Consumers were asked to consider two key factors about these
hybrids:thesavingsachievableonfuelcostsandtheaddedcostpremiumtopurchasethevehicle.The
questionswerebasedonestimatesofthelikelyfuelsavingsandcostpremiumsforthehybridvehiclesin
five to ten years (in todays dollars). The costs premiums presented to consumers for PHEVs were
$2,500,$5,000,and$10,000andthefuelsavingswasestimatedat75%comparedwithaconventional
gasoline engine. Consumers preferences for new vehicles were elicited in terms of purchase
probabilitiesorthelikelihoodofafuturepurchase.
At an additional cost of $2,500, the mean purchase probability for a plugin hybrid electric
vehicle was 46%, which dropped to 30% for a PHEV that cost an additional $5,000, and to 14% at an
additionalcostof$10,000.Thislargeresponseinpurchaseprobabilitiestoincreasingpricepremiums
wasgreaterthancouldbejustifiedbasedonpurelyeconomicrationales.Basedonconsumersactual
gasexpenditureswiththeircurrentvehicles,theaveragepaybackperiodfortheaddedpremiumtobe
offsetbyfuelsavingsrangedfrom2.0to8.5yearsataninflationadjusteddiscountrateof3%.Tobe
sure,newtechnologyentailsrisksthatmayentailhighercostsoralowerresalevaluewhichwouldmean
that these payback periodswereunderestimated.Atarealdiscountrateof10%,thepaybackperiod
ranged from 2.2 to 12.9 years. Indeed, other studies of purchases of energyefficient household
appliances have found that consumers apply up to a 20% discount rate in their actual purchasing
decisions.
Three general sets of factors were investigated to gain a better understanding of how
consumers judged the potential purchase of a plugin hybrid electric vehicle. The first general factor
wasthecharacteristicsofthevehiclethatconsumerscurrentlyownandhowthevehiclesweredriven,
determiningthecostimplicationsofvehiclepurchasedecisions.Thesecondgeneralfactorfocusedon
thesocioeconomiccharacteristicsofthehousehold,itsgeographiclocation,andrechargingcapabilities.
The third factor was environmental and other noneconomic attitudes that may be related to
preferencesforhybridvehicles.
Page8
The impact of these three general factors can be summarized as follows: although economic
considerations had a significant influence on hybrid purchase probabilities, environmental and other
noneconomicattitudeshadanevenlargerimpact.Itisarathercommonplacefindingthattheutility
that consumers draw from vehicles depends on more than a strict economic costbenefit calculation.
Even when vehicles are equivalent in every way from an economic point of view, different makes,
models, and styles connote different social messages about the owner. A strong appeal of plugin
hybrids is that consumers believe such a purchase would vividly demonstrate their commitment to a
cleanerenvironment.Suchbeliefsareimportantfortheintroductionofpluginhybrids,actingtooffset
some of the higher economic costs by conferring social benefits. Such positive social benefits can be
expectedtobeinverselyproportionaltothenumberofhybridowners;atsomepoint,thepositivesocial
benefitsofowningahybridmayshifttorisingnegativesocialimplicationsaboutthosewhoshunthese
more fuel efficient vehicles. Such a purely social dynamic, however, cannot exist independent of
economicfactors,especiallysincevehiclesaregenerallythesecondmostexpensivepurchasemadeby
consumers.
ThefirstbuyersofPHEVsarelikelytocurrentlyownvehicleswithrelativelyhighfuelefficiency
ratingsandfavorthepurchaseofthevehicleforenvironmentalreasons.Theeconomicjustificationfor
thepurchasewillnotbegreatsincethepaybackperiodtooffsetthecostpremiumwillbelongerthan
forsomeonewhoownsalowmileagevehicle.Thefirsttimebuyerwillbehighlyeducatedandthinkitis
importanttosignalhisorhercommitmenttoacleanerenvironmenttoothers.FirsttimePHEVbuyers
are likely to own their own home, have convenient access to an electric outlet, and relish the
opportunitytoavoidgasstationsandrechargetheirvehiclesovernightatoffpeakpricing.Althougha
first time PHEV buyer is likely to have relatively high income, these consumers were as sensitive as
moderateorlowerincomeconsumerstothepotentialsizeofthepremiumsonPHEVs.
The economic challenges to the successful introduction of PHEVs are diverse, although the
reactions to the premiums charged for PHEVs were nearly universal. As the premiums for PHEVs
doubledfrom$2,500to$5,000anddoubledagainto$10,000,therewasauniformdeclineinpurchase
probabilities across all of the socioeconomic characteristics measured, across all differences in the
characteristics of the vehicles they currently owned and how they were used, and across all of the
environmentalattitudesmeasured.Onaverage,thepurchaseprobabilitiesdeclinedby16percentage
points for each doubling of the initial cost premium. This was true no matter how different the
subgroups initial purchase probability was from the overall average; each doubling prompted a very
similardeclineinthelikelihoodofpurchase.Thiswasthemostvividandconvincingdemonstrationof
thesensitivityofconsumerstothepriceofPHEVs.Atapremiumof$10,000,56%ofallrespondents
reportedthattherewasnochancethattheywouldeverpurchaseaPHEV,morethandoublethe23%
responseatapremiumof$2,500.Theaveragepurchaseprobabilityatthe$10,000premiumfellby70%
tojustaoneinsevenchanceofpurchasefromnearlyaoneintwochanceatthe$2,500premium.
Given that a tax credit amounting to $7,500 will be available to buyers of PHEVs, this would
makeaPHEVpurchasesmuchmorelikely,atleastintheory.Theproblemisthatmostbuyerswould
have to finance the total price of the vehicle, including the premium, before they could claim the tax
credit.Thiswouldlimitthealreadynarrowgroupofnewvehiclebuyerstothosewhoweremorelikely
Page9
topaycashratherthanfinancethevehicle.Ifthistaxcreditcouldbeconvertedintoareductionofthe
purchase price, perhaps through manufacturer or dealer intervention, its impact on sales would be
muchgreaterandmoreequitabletothosewhopurchasedoncredit.
Thedataprovidestrongevidencethatacombinationofeconomicandsocialincentivesmaybe
themosteffectiveforthesuccessfulintroductionofPHEVs.Indeed,socialforcesplayanimportantrole
in most purchases, including vehicles. The survey documented the significant influence of hybrid
vehiclesinsignalingpeoplescommitmenttoacleanenvironment.Nonetheless,theimportanceofthe
attitudes toward the environment in explaining hybrid purchase probabilities provides less compelling
evidence of the underlying demand than if preferences for hybrids were mostly based on economic
criteria. The presumption is that following the introduction of PHEVs, if the vehicle is priced so that
consumers can recoup their initial investments over a reasonable time period, consumers would find
ampleeconomicjustificationforthepurchaseofaPHEV.Thecriticalroleofenvironmentalandother
noneconomicattitudesistoprovidetheinitialburstofinterestandsalestopropelPHEVsappealtothe
massmarket.
Page10
Introduction
Vehicle purchases are important economic decisions for individual consumers and have
importantconsequencesforthenationasawhole.Consumerscanbeexpectedtotakebothcapitaland
operating costsintoaccountwhenmaking theirpurchasedecisions.Vehiclesaretypicallythesecond
most expensive purchase made by households, and the technology embodied in each vehicle
determinesitsoperatingcostsoverthelifeofthevehicle.Themajoroperatingcostforvehiclesistied
toconsumerexpendituresforgasoline,whichisdeterminedbythevehiclesfuelefficiency,dailymiles
driven and the price of gasoline. Petroleum prices were extremely volatile during the second half of
2008, with the per barrel price of West Texas Intermediate peaking at $133.37 in July followed by a
declineto$41.12byDecember;thesepricestranslatedtoanationalaveragepergallonpriceforregular
gasoline of $4.06 in July and $1.69 by December. 1 The extraordinary volatility in the cost of gasoline
duringthepastfewyearshasraisedthelevelofuncertaintyamongconsumersaboutfuturepricesand
caused them to place greater weight on the expected variability and mean level of gasoline prices in
theirvehiclepurchasedecisions.
Concerns about the future prices of petroleum products have been accompanied by rising
worries over both the impact of global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions and the nations
energy independence. The transportation sector accounted for onethird of all greenhouse gas
emissionsintheU.S.in2006. 2 Thereareseveralfederalprogramsdesignedtolowertheseemissionsby
requiringmorefuelefficientvehicles,includingtherecentlyenactedincreaseintherequiredcorporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Onequarter of U.S. oil imports come from the Persian Gulf
region,anareawithwhosevolatilityAmericansareextensivelyfamiliarwith. 3 Concernsaboutpotential
disruptions to the oil supply and the resultant spike in gas prices loom large with any news of new
disturbances in this region. Hybrid vehicles would also reduce the use of petroleum and have been
promoted by various government programs, including tax incentives to consumers. Hybrid vehicles
whosebatteriescanberechargedbypluggingintotheelectric gridhave theadditionaladvantagesof
further lowering the use of imported petroleum and lowering the total greenhouse gas emissions
involvedintransportation,eveniftheelectricityforrechargingthebatteriesisgeneratedfromcoal.
Plugin hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), however, represent a significant change in technology
with which most consumers are currently unfamiliar, and recharging the batteries would require a
significantchangeinbothconsumerhabitsandtheinfrastructureofthenationselectricalgrid.One
factorpeoplecommonlyconsiderintheirchoiceofavehicleiswhetherthevehicleanditsrefuelingcan
provideareliableformoftransportationwheneverthevehicleisneeded.Ensuringthatthesevehicles
can be recharged overnight from standard home outlets or providing charging stations at non
residentiallocationscouldassuageatleastsomeconsumerconcernsaboutPHEVs.
EnergyInformationAdministration,ShortTermEnergyOutlook,CrudeOilPrice,ReleasedJune09,2009.
EnergyInformationAdministration,EmissionsofGreenhouseGasesintheUnitedStates2007,December2008,
DOE/EIA0573(2007).
EnergyInformationAdministration.CrudeOilImportsfromPersianGulf2008.ReleasedMarch02,2009.
Page11
Asidefromtherisksinherentinthepurchaseofanynewtechnology,thesavingsinenergycosts
would be offset by the higher initial costs for the hybrid vehicle itself. Consumers, however, often
rejectthetradeoffofpayingmoreforanenergyefficientproductthatwillprovidemorethanoffsetting
energysavingsoveritsusablelife,especiallywhentheaddedpremiumforthetechnologicaladvances
representsasignificantportionofthetotalpriceoftheproduct.
For the introduction of new technology to ultimately succeed, the initial interest among
consumers only needs to warrant the continued investment in and development of the basic
technology. If the technology proves its meritespecially its advantages compared with other
alternativedevelopmentsinvehiclefuelefficiencytherateofadoptioncanbeexpectedtoincrease.
This research does not attempt to model the rate of adoption or the ultimate size of the market for
PHEVs. This research is confined to an examination of the initial phase of adoption, detailing the
circumstancesandconditionsunderwhichconsumerswouldfavorordisfavorthepurchaseofPHEVs.
Furthermore,thepurposeofthisstudywasnottosolelyfocusonfirstadopters,butthesizeofthe
potentialpoolofpurchasersinthefirstseveralyearsaftertheintroductionofPHEVs.
Given that consumers have little or no experience with PHEVs but can be expected to know
somethingabouthybridelectricvehicles(HEVs)suchasthePrius,thispaperwillfirstprovideareviewof
the defining characteristics of the two vehicles, as well as the expected advantages of each type of
hybrid vehicle. These characteristics were used to devise the question wording that was used in a
nationallyrepresentativesampleofU.S.consumerstoestimatetheirinterestinthepurchaseofhybrid
electricvehicles.
HybridElectricVehicles
Hybridelectricvehiclesincludeanelectricmotorandabatterypackinadditiontoatraditional
internalcombustionengine.Therearetwoclassesofhybriddesignsthatdifferinthewaythevehicle
usesgasolineandelectricalpower.Inaparallelhybrid,gasolineisprovidedtoaconventionalengine
andthebatteriessupplypowertoanelectricmotor.Thevehicletransmission,whichturnsthewheels,
canbepoweredbyeithertheengineortheelectricmotor.Allmassproducedhybridsusethevehicle
itself to recharge the batteries during normal driving. Although there are some customized parallel
hybrid vehicles whose batteries can be recharged by plugging into the electric grid, this research
assumedthebatteriesofallparallelhybridscanonlyberechargedbythevehicleitself.
Theothertypeofhybridisaserieshybridinwhichthegasolineengineandelectricmotorsare
linkedinline. Thegasolineenginerunsagenerator,whichis usedtorechargethevehiclesbatteries
andthebatterypoweredenginerunsthevehicle.Thegasolineengineisspeciallydesignedtobeused
as a generator and is never intended to directly power the transmission. When the battery power is
low,theengineautomaticallyprovidesthebatterywithenoughpowertorunthevehicle.Mostofthe
time,however,thebatteryisrechargedbypluggingitintotheelectricgrid,alessexpensivesourceof
energythangasoline.
Page12
ThispaperusesthetermshybridelectricvehicleorHEVtoindicateaparallelhybridandthe
termpluginhybridelectricvehicleorPHEVtoindicateaserieshybrid.Itisimpossibletopredictallof
the variations that will be developed on these basic differences in the future, but for the purposes of
thisstudythesetwobasictypeswerechosentocharacterizethemaindifferencesinhybridvehicles.
Inadditiontothesebasicdefinitionsofhybridvehicles,twocriticalassumptionswererequired
todeterminethewillingnessofconsumerstopurchasethesevehicles:thetypicalfuelsavingandthe
additionalcostofthevehicleitself.Likemanyinnovations,thenewtechnologyisexpensive,particularly
theexpectedcostofthebatteries.Moreover,consumersmustbewillingtoacceptthetradeoffofa
highercosttoacquirethevehicleforalowercostoffuelovertheuseablelifeofthevehicle.Obviously,
the number of miles driven, the allelectric range of the vehicle, gasoline and electric prices, discount
rates, and other economic factors influence the purchase decision. Aside from economic factors, the
decisiontopurchaseahybridvehiclemaybeassociatedwithotherconcerns,suchastherisksinherent
innewtechnology,environmentalconcerns,andsoforth.
Predictingthecostofnewtechnologyinadvanceofitsintroductionisadifficulttask.Moreover,
thefocusofthestudywasnottodeterminepurchaseprobabilitiesforthefirstmodelintroduced but
thepurchaseprobabilitiesoverthenextfivetotenyears.Thislongertermfocusmadetheforecasting
taskevenmoredifficult.
HEVsprovidegreaterfuel economycomparedtoconventional vehiclesofasimilarmodeland
class.Dependingonthevehicleclass,HEVsareestimatedtosave15%to70%infuelcostsannually,and
costbetween20%and50%morethanconventionalgasvehiclesofthesameclass,beforeaccounting
foradditionalsavingsfromtaxcredits. 4 SalesofHEVshaveincreasedtoa2.5%shareofthelightduty
carandtruckmarketin2008,upfrom2.2%in2007and1.5%in2006accordingtotheU.S.EPA. 5
Therearetwotypesofincentivesthatcouldbeofferedtoconsumerstopromotethepurchase
of hybrid vehicles: reductions in the cost of ownership of hybrid vehicles and taxes that increase the
cost of gasoline. Perhaps the most effective incentives would reduce the initial purchase price of the
vehicle, either through reductions in the purchase price offered by manufacturers, waivers of sales
taxes,oradirectgovernmentsubsidytoreducethepurchasepriceforconsumers.Federalincometax
creditsaresomewhatlesseffectivesincethecostreductionisdeferreduntilthefilingofanincometax
return. This problem particularly affects buyers who must finance all or most of the purchase. The
AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009includesacreditagainstannualtaxpaymentsforthe
purchaseof certainalternativefuelvehicles.AllPHEVsareeligibleforthe basecreditof $2,500,plus
$417 if their battery capacity is at least five kilowatthours and an additional $417 credit for each
Edmunds,HybridBuyingGuide:WhatYouShouldKnowBeforeBuyingaHybridin2009,
http://www.edmunds.com/hybrid/2009/beforebuy.html,AccessedMarch3
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,LightDutyAutomotiveTechnologyandFuelEconomyTrends:1975
Through2008,September2008,EPA420R08015.
Page13
kilowatthourofbatterycapacityabovefivekilowatthours.6 ThemaximumobtainablecreditforPHEVs
is$7,500.Thecreditissettobeginphasingoutafterthesaleof200,000vehiclespermanufacturerand
canonlybeappliedtonewvehiclespurchasedafterDecember31,2009.
Asignificantfactorpromotingthepurchaseofmorefuelefficientvehiclesishighergasprices,
either driven by market forces or by higher state or federal taxes. 7 More recently consumers have
becomeconcernedaboutprotectingthemselvesfromspikesingasolineprices,eveniftemporarily,by
thepurchaseofamorefuelefficientvehicle.
PHEVtechnologyallowsforagreaterreductioninpetroleumfuelusageandacorrespondingly
higherpurchaseprice.MostestimatesoftheexpectedfuturecostofaPHEVfocusontheincremental
cost of the Lithiumion battery, implying offsetting costs from the shift from a gasoline to a battery
power engine. The long term cost increment of a Lithiumion battery with an allelectric range of 40
mileswasexpectedtobe$9,626whenestimatedin2006. 8 Anequivalentcostpergallonofgasolinefor
a compact PHEV can be calculated, assuming the following: (1) 0.24 kWh consumed per mile for the
PHEV 9 ;(2)30milestravelledpergallonofgasforaconventionalcompactvehicle; 10 and,(3)anational
averagepriceof$0.1065perkWhforresidentialelectricity. 11 Applyingtheseassumptionsresultsinan
equivalent price per gallon of gasoline for a PHEV of approximately $0.75. 12,13 The actual price of
AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009.111thCong.,1stSess.(2009),DivisionB,Title1,SectionD,
Number14.
Diamond,D.TheImpactofGovernmentIncentivesforHybridElectricVehicles:EvidencefromUSStates,
EnergyPolicy,Volume37,Issue3,March2009.
Simpson,A.Cost/BenefitAnalysisofHybridElectricandPlugInHybridElectricVehicleTechnology,inPlugIn
HybridElectricVehicleAnalysis,DepartmentofEnergy,OfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewableEnergy,
MilestoneReportNREL/MP54040609,November2006.
ValuecalculatedusingAdvisormodelingresultsforthefullchargetest,whichsimulatestheallelectricmode.
Specifically,0.24kWh/mile=33.4kWh/1galgasoline*1gasolinegalequivalent/142.1miles.EPRI,Comparing
theBenefitsandImpactsofHybridElectricVehicleOptionsforCompactSedanandSportUtilityVehicles,Palo
Alto,CA:2002.1006892.
10
Valuerepresentstheaverage2005fuelefficiencyforalightdutypassengercar.BureauofTransportation
Statistics,"NationalTransportationStatistics,2006,"Table423,December2006.
11
Valuerepresentstheannualaverageresidentialretailpriceofelectricityfor2007.EnergyInformation
Administration,Table5.3.AverageRetailPriceofElectricitytoUltimateCustomers:TotalbyEndUseSector,
1994throughNovember2008,inElectricPowerMonthly,ReleasedFebruary13,2009.
12
Calculationperformedasfollows:0.24kWh/mile*(30miles/gal)*($0.1065/kWh)=PHEVequivalent$/gal.
13
Thiscalculationusestheaverageretailelectricitypricesfrom2006andfuelefficiencyforpassengercarsfrom
2005andissimilartopricesofapproximately$1.00quotedinDepartmentofEnergypublicationsformidsized
SUVs.See,forexample,Parks,K.CostsandEmissionsAssociatedwithPlugInHybridElectricVehicleChargingin
theXcelEnergyColoradoServiceTerritory,DepartmentofEnergy,OfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewable
Energy,TechnicalReportNREL/TP6404140,May2007.
Page14
gasolinepaidbyrespondentsatthetimeofthesurveyaveragedabout$3.55.Shiftingfromgasolineto
electricitytopoweravehiclewouldimplya79%reductioninthecostoffuel.
StudyDesignandMethods
The goal of the consumer survey was to assess the current state of knowledge and opinions
aboutPHEVs.Inparticular,thesurveyaddressedthewillingnessofindividualstopayforHEVorPHEV
technologygivendifferentcostandfuelsavingsscenarios.IndividualswereaskedaboutPHEVsduringa
longerconsumersurveywhichwasbasedonarepresentativenationalsampleofU.S.adultsaged18or
older. The interviews were conducted between July 1 and November 25, 2008 and included 2,513
respondents, of whom 93% were licensed drivers at the time of the survey. Additional demographic
information such as age, income, education, geographic location, gender, and race was also collected
duringthesurveyaswellasinformationabouttheconsumersvehiclesandhowtheyusedthem.
A number of key assumptions about emerging technology, fuel savings, and the cost of the
vehicleunderpinthePHEVsurvey.TherespondentswereaskedtocomparetheHEVsandPHEVstoa
conventionalinternalcombustionenginevehicle;thesurveydidnotaskconsumerstocompareanHEV
to a PHEV. The survey questions incorporated the assumption that HEVs achieve 25% more fuel
efficiencyandcost$1,500morethanacomparabletraditionalgasenginevehicle.WhiletheHEVcost
premiumissmallerthanatpresent,theHEVpremiumisexpectedtodeclineafterPHEVsareintroduced.
PHEVs were assumed to obtain 75% greater fuel efficiency, with possible price premiums of $2,500,
$5,000,or$10,000overconventionalvehicles.Therangewasbasedonthepremiumsthatarelikelyto
existfollowingasuccessfulintroductionofthePHEV.Whilesomeestimatesoftheinitialpremiumwere
much higher than $10,000, pretesting indicated that at premiums higher than $10,000, few, if any,
consumerswouldpurchaseaPHEV.
DeterminingpotentialconsumerdemandforPHEVsisadifficulttasksincenoconsumercanbe
expectedtoknowthefeaturesandcostsofavehiclethatdoesnotcurrentlyexistinthemarketplace.
To assess potential demand, realistic descriptions of PHEVs and associated costs must be provided to
consumers.Tobesure,thepotentialmatrixofvariationsinthefeaturesofPHEVscrossedbyvariations
in costs was too large to fully investigate in population surveys. As a result, some limitations on the
typesandcostsofhybridvehicleshadtobedevisedtoadequatelyrepresentthedistinctiveaspectsof
the product as well as the purchase decision faced by consumers. Two key decisions were made in
ordertofacilitateconsumersassessments.First,sincepretestsrevealedconfusionamongconsumers
between the characteristics of HEVs and PHEVs, questions were specifically tailored to ensure clarity.
Second, rather than offer descriptions of multiple types of PHEVs, the survey asked about different
purchasecostsforthesametypeofPHEV.
The first question was aimed at HEVs, the type of vehicle with which most consumers were
alreadyfamiliar.ThedescriptionwasintendedtodescribeaparallelHEVmuchlikethePrius:
Page15
Vehiclemanufacturerscurrentlyofferforsalehybridvehicleswhichcombineanordinarygasoline
enginewithabatterypoweredelectricmotortoincreasefuelefficiency.Thebatteryisrecharged
by the vehicle itself during normal driving, with most of the gas savings generated during city
driving.
Thedescriptionwasintendedtobeaneasilyunderstoodstatementoftheessentialcharacteristicsofan
HEV that avoided too much technical detail or jargon. Consumers interest in purchasing this type of
vehicle was measured by a probability scale, first without any mention of a purchase cost differential
betweenanHEVandanormalvehicle.Notethatnofixedtimeofpurchasewasgiven,sincethegoalof
thestudywasnottoestimatenextyearssalesofhybridsbuttodeterminelongtermtrendsindemand.
Onascaleofzerotoonehundred,wherezeromeansthatyouwoulddefinitelynotbuyandone
hundred means you definitely would buy, what are the chances that you might buy a hybrid
vehiclesometimeinthefuture?
Thecostelementswerethenintroducedbynotingthathybridsweredistinctivebothintermsof
fuelexpendituresandpurchaseprice.
Thecostofdrivingahybridvehiclehadtwomajorcomponents:thecostofthevehicleitselfand
thecostofgasoline.Whilehybridsreducegasolineconsumption,thehybridvehicleitselftypically
costsmorethananordinaryvehicle.
The purchase probability question was again asked, this time with cost information. Rather than
indicatingspecificestimatesforspecificvehicles,anoverallaverageofa25%reductioninfuelcostsand
anincreaseof$1,500inthevehiclecostwereused.Predictingtheactualamountsofgassavingsand
theaddedcostofpurchasetookintoaccountbothcorrespondingchangesinthecostsofnonhybrids
and a reduced differential price as more hybrids were produced in the future. Pretests of the survey
revealedthatusingareductionofcostsratherthananincreaseinMPGmadethecomparisoneasier
forrespondents.
Ifahybridvehiclereducedtotalfuelcostsbytwentyfivepercentandthevehicleitselfcostsone
thousand five hundred dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances that you
mightbuyahybridvehicle,usingthesamescalerangingfromzerotoonehundred,wherezero
means that you would definitely not buy and one hundred mean you definitely would buy
sometimeinthefuture?
FollowingthequestionsonHEVs,respondentswerethenaskedaboutPHEVsinasimilarformat.
A definition of a PHEV was first read to the respondent, with the essential difference being that the
rechargingwasmainlydonefromplugginginthevehicletoastandardoutlet.Thequestionwasframed
todescribeaseriesratherthanaparallelhybrid.
Vehicle manufacturers are also developinga more fuel efficient type ofhybrid vehicle, which is
called a plugin hybrid. The battery on this vehicle is recharged by plugging the vehicle into a
standard electrical outlet. Starting each day with a fully recharged battery, the vehicle could
travelfromtentosixtymilesonbatterypower.Whenthebatteryrunslow,thegasolineengine
wouldautomaticallygeneratethepowertorunthevehicle.
Page16
Thesamepurchaseprobabilityscalewasthenused,withthefirstquestionmakingnoreferencetothe
potentialcosts:
Onascaleofzerotoonehundred,wherezeromeansthatyouwoulddefinitelynotbuyandone
hundred means you definitely would buy, what are the chances that you might buy a plugin
hybridvehiclesometimeinthefuture?
Respondentswerethenremindedofthesamedivisionbetweenthepurchasepriceofthevehicleand
operatingcosts,includingthoseassociatedwithelectricityandgasoline.
Thecostofdrivingapluginhybridalsohastwomajorcomponents:thecostofthevehicleitself
and the total cost of electricity and gasoline. While the plugin hybrids reduce overall fuel
consumption,thepluginhybriditselftypicallycostsmorethananordinaryvehicle.
Thereductionintotalfuelcostswassetat75%,derivedfromtheestimatedcostofelectricity
compared with gasoline. Fuel and vehicle costs were intended to be reasonable estimates for the
situationfivetotenyearsfromnow.Whilethismaybeanoverestimateorunderestimateofthetrue
fuelsavingsinthefuture,theimpactontheanalyticresultsisminimalsinceitwasheldconstantasthe
addedpriceofthevehicleitselfvariedfrom$2,500to$5,000andfinallyto$10,000.Whileanadded
cost of $2,500 may appear well below future production costs, the difference between high and low
figurewasmeanttomodelataxincentiveof$7,500forthepurchaseofaPHEV.
If a plugin hybrid reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent and cost two thousand five
hundreddollarsmorethananordinaryvehicle,whatarethechancesyoumightbuytheplugin
hybrid?
Whatifapluginhybridthatreducedtotalfuelcostsbyseventyfivepercentcostfivethousand
dollarsmorethananordinaryvehicle,whatarethechancesyoumightbuythepluginhybrid?
Whatifapluginhybridthatreducedtotalfuelcostsbyseventyfivepercentcosttenthousand
dollarsmorethananordinaryvehicle,whatarethechancesyoumightbuythepluginhybrid?
Page17
HybridPurchaseProbabilities
Consumers judged the probability of purchasing an HEV at 51% when no cost data were
provided, and at 53% with an assumed fuel
Chart1:
saving of 25% and an added vehicle price of PurchaseProbabilitiesAmongAllVehicleOwningHouseholds
HEV
PHEV
$1,500(seeChart1atrightandTable2).The
53%
results suggest that when consumers were
51%
46%
notprovidedanycostdata,theyhadassumed
42%
figuresveryclosetothe 25%reductioninfuel
30%
costsandpayingan additional$1,500forthe
14%
HEV.ThesameresultwasfoundforPHEVsin
that consumers were slightly more disposed
topurchasingaPHEVwithfuelsavingsof75%
NoCost/Fuel Cost+$1,500 NoCost/Fuel Cost+$2,500 Cost+$5,000 Cost+$10,000
DataGiven
Fuel25%
DataGiven
Fuel75%
Fuel75%
Fuel75%
and paying an additional $2,500 for the
vehicle. This indirect evidence suggests that consumers anticipated slightly higher costs or less fuel
savingsthanthealternativesgiveninthefirstfollowupquestion.
The overall level of the probability of purchase suggests widespread interest, with consumers
rating the purchase of an HEV as nearly as
Chart2:
likely as a standard vehicle, and being only
PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVswith75%FuelSavings
slightly less likely to purchase a PHEV than a
Cost+$2,500
Cost+$5,000
Cost+$10,000
standard vehicle. Nonetheless, these
Mean=30
56%
Mean=46
Mean=14
preferences are highly dependent on prices,
aswitheachsuccessivedoublingoftheprice
33%
ofPHEVs,theprobabilityofpurchasefallsby
28%
27% 27%
26% 25%
23%
16 percentage points. The average
16%
probabilityofaPHEVpurchasefelltojust14%
13%
10%
10%
whenthevehiclecostanadditional$10,000.
3%
2%
1%
Zero 133% 3366% 6799% 100% Zero 133% 3366% 6799% 100% Zero 133% 3366% 6799% 100%
The probability distribution changes

Purchase Probability
dramatically at higher costs. At the lowest
cost of an additional $2,500, the distribution appears rather flat; it steepened at an added cost of
$5,000,andbecameverysteepatthetoppremiumof$10,000(seeChart2andTable1).Indeed,56%
ofallconsumersrespondedthattherewasnochancethattheywouldbuyaPHEVatthetoppremium.
The proportion indicating a zero probability of purchase moves from nearly oneinfour at $2,500, to
oneinthree at $5,000, to more than oneintwo at an added cost of $10,000. At the other extreme,
thosethatsaidtheywere100%certainthattheywouldbuyaPHEV,reachedahighofjust10%forthe
lowestaddedcostandfelltojust1%forthehighestaddedcost.Itshouldbenosurprisethatvehicle
purchases,typicallythesecondlargestpurchasehouseholdsmake,wouldbeverysensitivetoprice.
Page18
CorrelatesofPurchaseProbabilitiesforHybridVehicles
What prompts people to favor a hybrid vehicle over a standard internal combustion engine
vehicle?Therearetwogeneralclassesofvariablesthatcouldhelpexplaintheserelativepreferences.
Perhaps the most important set of variables are those that determine the total cost of a hybrid
comparedwithaconventionalvehicle.Thesevariablescoverthecostoffuelandthevehicleitself,the
fuelefficiencyofthevehicle,themixandnumberofhighwayandcitymilesdriven,thecost,availability,
and convenience of refueling options, as well as the willingness and ability of consumers to tradeoff
higher capital costs against lower operating costs. The second set involves consumer preferences for
differenttypesofvehiclesandtechnology,includingtheimpactofenvironmentalattitudesonvehicle
purchases.
The total number of potential correlates was larger than the survey could reasonably
accommodate,asisusuallythecase.Whetheracorrelatewasactuallyincludedinthesurveywasthe
resultofanassessmentofthelikelyimpactofavariableonthechoicebetweenahybridandnonhybrid
vehicle.Thevariablesincludedcanbeconvenientlysummarizedbythefollowinggeneralcategories.
Nonsurveydataonactualcostsingeographiclocationofresidenceattimeofsurvey
o pricesofgasolineandelectricity,andvehicleMPG
Characteristicsofthecurrentlyownedvehicleandvehicleusagepatterns
o Make/modelandageofvehicleandtotalnumberofhouseholdvehicles
o Numberofmilesdriven,highwaymiles,andamountspentongasoline
Demographicandeconomiccharacteristicsoftheindividualandhousehold
o Age,income,education,gender,andlocationofresidence
o Locationwhereparkandavailabilityofanoutletforrecharging
Environmentalattitudesandpreferencesfornewtechnology
o Minimumallelectricrange,avoidanceofgasstations,responsivenesstoelectric
pricing
o Hybridsfavoredforcostvs.environment,hybridsasshowofcommitment,favor
newtechnology
The complete list and definitions of these variables are included in the attached tables along
withhowhybridpurchaseprobabilitiesdifferedbasedontheseclassifications.Theoverallassessment
ofthesevariablesismadeinthecontextofamultivariateanalysis(Table5).Itisnonethelessofsome
interesttoreviewindetailtheunivariaterelationshipswithhybridpurchaseprobabilities.Tables1224
includethedemographiccorrelatesofthekeyindependentvariables.
The multivariate analysis seeks to determine the independent influence of each variable after
controlling for the influence of the other predictors. Linear regression models with standard errors
robusttothepresenceofheteroscedasticitywerefittedforsixdependentvariables,spanningHEVsand
PHEVswithnocostdataaswellastheaddedcostpremiumversions.Themultivariatemodelsgenerally
confirmed the univariate results; whenever they differed, the potential reasons for the difference are
discussed.
Page19
Before addressing these issues, this paper first considers two key economic constructs: the
responsivenessofconsumerstopricesandestimatesofhowlongitwouldtakeconsumerstorecover
theadditionalcostofthevehicleinsavingsfromthereducedamountoffuelthattheywouldneed.To
be sure, this research did not attempt to compute a comprehensive assessment of either the price
elasticity of demand or the expected payoff period of PHEV purchases, but the estimates below can
provideaframeworkforconsideringtheseconstructs.
PriceElasticityandPayoffPeriods
Thedatasuggestaveryhighpriceresponsivenessofdemandforhybridvehicles.Thetraditional
calculationofpriceelasticitythepercentage
Chart3:
changeindemanddividedbythepercentage
ResponsivenessofPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiestoPrice
(PHEVwithfuelsavingsof75%)
change in pricecan only be approximated
AddedCost
12000
bythecollecteddata.Thechangeindemand
10000
mustbeestimatedbythechangeinpurchase
8000
probabilities,andthechangeinpricemustbe
6000
approximatedbycombiningthebasepriceof
4000
a vehicle with the additional cost of the
2000
hybrid.ThebasicdataisshowninChart3and
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Table 3. If the base price of a comparable
ProbabilityofPHEVPurchase
vehicle is assumed to be $25,000, the total
changeinpriceforaPHEVwouldbe27.3%(from$27,500to$35,000)andthetotalchangeinpurchase
probabilities would be 69.9%, so the price elasticity would be 2.6%, or for each percentage point
changeinthepriceofthevehicle,thepurchaseprobabilitywouldbereducedby2.6%.Atabasecostof
$20,000,thepriceelasticitywouldbe2.1%;atabasepriceforaconventionalvehicleof$30,000,the
price elasticity of PHEV purchase probabilities would be 3.0%. These calculations assume that the
choicesetofavailablevehiclesonlyincludesPHEVs.
Itisofsomeinteresttonotethatthereductioninpurchaseprobabilitiesastheassumedcostsof
a PHEV increased was nearly identical across all consumers. This finding held across differences in
consumers economic and demographic characteristics; nor did it vary by the characteristics of the
vehicles they owned or how they were used; it was also largely independent of their environmental
attitudes(seeTable3).Overall,thedataindicatedanearuniversalresponsivenesstoPHEVprices.To
besure,thereweredifferencesintheappealofPHEVsacrossthesesubgroups,buthoweverhighorlow
the initial appeal of a PHEV, as prices increases the appeal decreased at about the same rate in all
subgroups.
The payoff period for a purchase of PHEVs was calculated based on the difference in
expendituresongasolineandtheadditionalcostofthevehicle.Thesurveyaskedconsumersfortheir
monthlyexpendituresongasolinefortheircurrentvehicle.Thesavingswascalculatedat75%ofthat
totalandcomparedwiththeadditionalcostofthevehicle.Severalpossiblediscountrateswerethen
used to equate the additional upfront lump sum payment for the vehicle with the fuel savings
distributedovertime(seeChart4andTable4).Thepayoffperiodwasdefinedasthenumberofyearsit
Page20
wouldtakebeforetheupfrontcostsofthevehiclewerefullyrecoveredbyreducedfuelexpenditures.
The yearly estimate represented the median of the distribution, that is, when half of all consumers
wouldreachthebreakevenpoint.
Withaninflationadjusteddiscountrateof3%,itwouldtake3.7yearsforconsumerstorepay
theadditional$1,500foraHEV.ForaPHEV,
Chart4:
itwouldtake2.0yearsatanadditionalcostof
PayoffPeriodGivenRespondentsActualGasExpenses
(GasPricesattimeofInterview;medianpayoffperiodsinyears)
$2,500, 4.1 years with an added cost of
$5,000,and8.5yearswithanadditionalcost
HEV@25%
PHEV@75%fuelreduction
fuel reduction
of $10,000. Since the median age of a new
Real DiscountRate
+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
vehicle in the sample is just under 4 years,
0%
3.5
2.0
3.9
7.6
3%
3.7
2.0
4.1
8.5
one would expect well over 50% of
5%
3.8
2.1
4.2
9.3
consumerstofavorthepurchaseofaPHEVat
10%
4.1
2.2
4.7
12.9
an additional cost of $2500. The reported
hybrid purchase probabilities, however,
indicatethatconsumersmayusesubstantiallyhigherdiscountrates.Whilearealdiscountrateof3%is
a reasonable estimate based on economic criteria, the literature often estimates a much higher real
discount rate that consumers require before they would purchase a more energy efficient item.
Hausman (1979) estimates that consumers use a discount rate of about 20% in making the tradeoff
decisionwhenpurchasingenergyusingdurables.Whentheestimatesarebasedonarealdiscountrate
of10%,thepayoffperiodisgreatlyextendedforthehighestadditionalcostsforPHEVsitwouldtake
12.9yearstoreachthebreakevenpointwhenthePHEVcarriedanaddedcostof$10,000.Evenata
discountrateof5%,itwouldtakethemedianconsumer9.3yearstobreakeven.Discountratesof20%
would mean that almost no consumers could expect to break even on a PHEV purchase with a cost
incrementof$10000withinareasonabletimeframe.
Thesecalculationshaveseveralflaws,themostimportantofwhichisthattodaysexpenditures
ongasolinemaynotbeagoodestimateoftheprevailing
Chart5:
pricesofgasolinefiveortenyearsfromnow.Toaccount
PayoffPeriodGivenRespondentsExpectedGasExpenses
(GasPricesExpectedinFiveYears;medianpayoffperiodsinyears)
for this difference, consumers were asked to estimate
HEV@25%
what they thought gas would cost in five years. While
fuel reduction
consumers estimates of future gas prices can hardly be
Real DiscountRate
+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
0%
3.0
1.7
3.3
6.4
considered to be a reliable guide to the future cost of
3%
3.1
1.7
3.4
7.1
gasoline,theestimatesdoindicatetheframeofreference
5%
3.2
1.8
3.6
7.7
that consumers used in answering questions on the
10%
3.4
1.8
3.9
9.7
purchase probabilities for hybrid vehicles. Respondents
expectedgasolinetoaverage$4.35infiveyears,upfrom
the $3.55 that they actually paid at the time of the survey. When data for expected gas prices were
substitutedfortheactualpricesofgasolineatthetimeoftheinterview,ithadtheimpactofshortening
thepayofftimeperiod(seeChart5andTable4).Atthe3%realdiscountrate,thebreakevenperiod
was3.1yearsforanHEV,1.7yearsforaPHEVat$2,500more,3.4yearsat$5,000more,and7.1years
Page21
atanadditional$10,000.Ata10%realdiscountrate,itwasasubstantial9.7yearswhenthePHEVcost
anadditional$10,000.
The difference in the number of years it would take to reach breakeven levels based on
differences in added vehicle costs was substantial. As the price rose from an additional $2,500 to
$10,000,thenumberofyearstoreachthebreakevenpointincreasedby5.4yearswhenemployinga
3%realdiscountrateandroseby7.9yearsata10%realdiscountrate.Theseestimatesarebasedon
expectedfuturegasprices;whenthepriceofgasatthetimeoftheinterviewwasused,theincreasesin
breakevenlevelswereevenhigher.Moreover,atlowergasprices,theincreaseinyearsbeforeabreak
evenpointwasreachedwouldbeevenhigher.
Thebreakevenpointsdidvarybythecharacteristicsoftheconsumersincepeoplevaryinhow
much they typically spend on gasoline (see Tables 4a and 4b). It is not surprising that driving fewer
miles or spending less on gasoline was associated with longer breakeven period, or that these
attributesareassociatedwitholderandlowerincomeconsumers.
It was of some importance, however, that consumers who drove cars as opposed to pickups,
vansorSUVsrecordedmuchlongerpaybackperiods,aswouldbeexpectedfromtheirrelativelyhigher
fuelefficiency.Atarealdiscountrateof3%,carownershadabreakevenperiodof2.1yearscompared
with 1.5 years among van and SUV drivers when the PHEV cost an additional $2,500; at an added
$10,000foraPHEV,driversofcarshadabreakevenperiodof8.8yearscomparedwith6.0yearsamong
vanandSUVdrivers.ForHEVs,thebreakevenpointforcardriverswas3.8yearsandforvanandSUV
driversitwas2.6years.
In the multivariate models, years to pay off the initial cost premium was always significant; it
completelydominatedtheamountspentongasoline,acentralcomponentoftheestimatedbreakeven
point (see Table 5). To reduce collinearity, the amount spent on gasoline was dropped from the
regressionmodel.Thesignificanceofthepaybackperiodindicatesthatconsumersthoughtineconomic
termsaboutthecostsandbenefitsofpurchasinghybrids.Nonetheless,thepaybackperiodexplained
very little variance in the purchase probabilities, indicating that hybrid purchases are responsive to a
broaderrangeofpreferencesasidefromtheeconomicsofthepurchase.
ImpactofCurrentEconomicEnvironment
CurrentGasPrices.WhenthesurveyfirstbeganinJuly2008,gasolinepriceswereneartheirall
timepeaklevel,andsubsequentlyfellsharply
Chart6:
ActualGasPricesbyMonthofDataCollection
during the period of data collection. To
(EIAdataweightedtoreflectclosestgeographicmatchtorespondent)
determine the impact of current gasoline
CostperGallon
$5.00
prices on consumers intentions to purchase
$4.50
a hybrid vehicle, data from the Energy $4.00
$4.28
$3.99
Information Administration (EIA) on retail $3.50
$3.73
$3.40
prices of regular gasoline at the time of the $3.00
survey were matched to the geographic $2.50
$2.34
location of the respondent. For some $2.00
July
August
September
October
MonthSurveyConducted
Page22
November
respondents,EIAdatawereavailableforthecityormetropolitanareainwhichtheyresided,forothers,
state level data were used, and for the participants living in areas without finergrained price data,
regionaldataonretailgasolinepriceswereused(SeeAppendixAforfulldetails).Thedataongasprices
represent the average retail price during the week prior to the interview so as to match the
respondents most recent purchases. The data shown in Chart 6 represent the averages of the retail
price of gasoline faced by respondents in the month the survey was conducted. Gas prices averaged
$4.28 in July, then fell by about 30 cents per month to $3.40 in October and then doubled this three
monthdecline,fallingto$2.34inNovember.
Sincethefallingpriceofgasolinecouldbeexpectedtoaffectpeopleswillingnesstopurchasea
hybrid vehicle, the data on purchase
Chart7:
probabilitieswerearrayedbythepriceofgas
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyGasPricesAtTimeofSurvey
(Reductioninfuelcosts:HEVs=25%andPHEVs:=75%)
at the time of the interview. As shown in
PurchaseProbability
70%
Chart7andTable2,therewasnorelationship
HEV+$1,500 56.5
60%
54.6
52.1
50.9
52.0
between hybrid purchase probabilities and
50%
PHEV+$2,500
thepriceofgas(groupedintoquintiles).The
47.3
46.4
45.8
40%
44.6
44.5
PHEV+$5,000
besttestistocompareprobabilitieswhengas
30%
31.4
29.5
29.4
28.9
28.0
20%
was at its lowest price to when gas was the
PHEV+$10,000
10%
14.6
13.9
13.2
13.2
13.1
most expensive: the purchase probabilities
0%
for all vehicle cost scenarios were virtually
<$2.70
$2.70 $3.61 $3.62 $3.83 $3.84 $4.13
$4.14+
GasPricesforClosestGeographicMatchInWeekPriortoInterview
identical.Forexample,atanadditionalcost
of$2,500,thedifferencewasjust0.1percentagepoint,for$5,000thedifferencewasjust0.9andfor
$10,000thedifferencewasagainonly0.1percentagepoint.Alltheseresultswereinsignificantandwell
belowthestandarderrorsofthedifferences.AsimilartrendwasevidentfortheHEV,withadifference
betweenpurchaseprobabilitiesof1.2percentagepoints.
ElectricityPrices.TheretailpriceofelectricitywasobtainedfromtheEIAandmergedwiththe
interview data, taking into account the
Chart8:
respondentsstateofresidence(seeAppendix
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyActualRetailPriceofElectricity
(Reductioninfuelcosts:HEVs=25%andPHEVs=75%)
A for details on the estimation). The
PurchaseProbability
presumption is that lower electric prices 70%
55.5
56.0
60%
54.0
52.7 HEV+$1,500
would be associated with higher purchase 50%
49.6
PHEV+$2,500
47.3
probabilities for PHEVs. This hypothesis 40%
46.7
45.4
45.2
44.3
PHEV+$5,000
30%
cannot be accepted from the data, since
31.0
30.6
29.1
28.7
28.0
purchase probabilities in areas with the least 20%
PHEV+$10,000
16.5
10%
13.2
12.9
12.7
12.3
expensive electricity are virtually identical to
0%
<10centkWh 1010.9kWh 1111.9kWh 1214.9kWh 15+centskWh
purchaseprobabilitiesinareaswiththemost
ElectricPricesforClosestGeographicMatchtoInterview
expensive electricity (see Chart 8 and Table
2).Thereareseveralpotentialreasonsforthelackofassociation:thelargepricedifferentialbetween
gasoline and electricity, the greater time variance in gas compared to electric prices, the lack of
knowledgeabouttheeffectivecostofelectricitypermiletraveled,andthatthequestionswordingwas
Page23
intendedtomeanthatthetotalsavingsonfuelcosts,includingbothgasolineandelectric,wasfixedat
75%.
FuelCostsandFuelEfficiency
The presumption that the falling price of gasoline would immediately have an impact on
preferences for hybrids depends on the notion that consumers take the current price as their
expectation of the long run price of gasoline. This is not the case, however. The survey included a
questiononfiveyeargaspriceexpectations,atimeframethatwouldbeconsistentwiththeexpected
averagefuelcostsovertheownershipperiod.Tobesure,fiveyeargaspriceexpectationswerehigher
thancurrentpricesthroughoutthetimeperiod,andfellalongwithcurrentprices.Nonetheless,inthe
last month of the survey, the expected five year average gas price was $3.39, which was $1.01 more
than the actual price at that same time, a 41 cent increase over the previous months difference
betweentheactualpriceandthefiveyearexpectation.Moreover,thesurveyalsoprovidedevidence
thatconsumerswereasconcernedaboutthevariabilityofpricesastheoveralllevelofgasprices,inthe
formofattitudestowardthemainadvantagesofPHEVs.Whilenoconsumerwouldcomplainaboutan
unexpecteddecline,unexpectedincreasesingaspriceshaverepeatedlycausedfinancialhardship.To
avoid the adverse financial impact, consumers have voiced their willingness to engage in defensive
planning by obtaining more fuel efficient vehicles and expecting more variations in gas prices in the
future.
GasPriceExpectations.Whendataonpurchaseprobabilitieswerecomparedwithfiveyeargas
priceexpectations,higherexpectedgasprices
Chart9:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyGasPricesExpectedin5Years
wereassociatedwithhigherprobabilitiesofa
PHEV purchase (see Chart 9 and Table 2).
PurchaseProbability
70%
58.9
Respondents varied widely in their
56.9
60%
53.5
HEV+$1,500 51.5
46.9
50%
anticipationofgasprices,withadifferenceof
PHEV+$2,500
50.1
49.5
46.2
40%
42.7
over $2.00 between the upper and lower
41.9
PHEV+$5,000
30%
33.1
31.6
30.0
fifths of the distribution. Consumers who
26.9
26.7
20%
PHEV+$10,000
heldgaspriceexpectationsinthelowestfifth
10%
15.1
14.4
14.4
12.7
11.9
0%
of the distribution had significantly lower
<$3.30
$3.30 $3.91 $3.92 $4.49 $4.50 $5.33
$5.34+
PHEV purchase probabilities than those who
GasPricesforClosestGeographicMatchInWeekPriortoInterview
expected the highest future gas prices. The
differences in purchase probabilities between those with the highest and lowest expectations of gas
prices narrowed as the cost premium for the PHEV increased from $2,500 to $10,000. The 95%
confidenceintervalsforanadditionalcostof$2,500wereabout6.4comparedwithadifferenceof7.6
between the high and low quintiles; for an added cost of $5,000, the 95% confidence intervals were
about5.4withadifferenceof6.4,andforanaddedcostof$10,000,the95%confidenceintervalswere
about 3.9 with a difference of 2.4. In comparison, the HEV had a difference of 10 between the
purchaseprobabilitiesforthosewiththehighestandlowestexpectations.Tobesure,thesedifferences
inthePHEVandHEVpurchaseprobabilitiesarerathersmallforincreaseof$2.00inexpectedgasprice.
Page24
Theseexpectationsprovedtobeapositiveandsignificantpredictorofpurchaseprobabilitiesfor
hybridswhentheestimatedpaybackperiodswereexcludedfromthemodel;whenthepaybackperiod
wasincluded,thepaybackperiodcompletelydominatedgaspriceexpectations.Thiswasnotsurprising
sincethepaybackperiodwasbasedinpartonexpectedgaspricesduringthenextfiveyears.Tolower
collinearity, the five year gas price expectation variable was dropped from the regression model (see
Table5).
TotalAmountSpentonGasoline.PurchaseprobabilitiesforPHEVsincreasealongwiththetotal
amount consumers spend on gasoline (Chart
Chart10:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMonthlyCostofGasoline
10 shows the gasoline expenditures divided
into quintiles). Most of the increase in
PurchaseProbability
70%
57.6
57.4
purchase probabilities was documented as
55.3
60%
HEV+$1,500 53.9
50%
44.8
PHEV+$2,500
consumers moved from the lowest
51.1
49.8
47.4
46.2
40%
expenditures to the upper part of the
37.6 PHEV+$5,000
30%
34.6
33.1
29.9
29.3
distribution, with the probabilities actually
20%
23.4 PHEV+$10,000
16.2
10%
15.7
14.9
declining (insignificantly) after gasoline
14.1
9.0
0%
expendituresexceeded$260permonth.The
$80orless
$81 $130
$131 $190
$191 $260 $261ormore
probabilities are shown along with their
MonthlyCostofGasoline
standarderrorsinTable2.Forareductionin fuelcostsof75%andanincreaseincostsof$2,500,the
confidenceintervalwaslessthan6.2,for$5,000itwas5.2,andfor$10,000itwas3.6.Thus,the
increase from the lowest to the middle quintile was a significant increase, but the increase from the
middletothetopquintilewasnot.
Without the presence of the payback variable, total gasoline expenditures proved to be a
significant predictor; when the payback variable was included, it dominated the gas expenditure
variable. This was not surprising since the payback variable was calculated using the monthly gas
expenditureadjustedbytheexpectedfuturepriceofgasoline.
VehicleMPG.Thetotalamountspentonfuelrepresentsthecombinationofthevehiclesfuel
efficiency and the total number of miles
Chart11:
traveled. Based on the characteristics of the
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyVehicleMPG
vehicle reported (make, model, and year) as
PurchaseProbability
70%
wellastheproportionoftotalmilesthatwere
59.0
HEV+$1,500
54.7
53.1
52.3
highway miles, EPA data were used to 60%
50.9
50%
PHEV+$2,500
50.9
estimate the actual MPG achieved by the 40%
46.7
45.4
45.2
44.7
PHEV+$5,000
consumer (see Appendix A for details on the 30%
32.6
30.3
30.0
28.9
28.4
MPG estimate). Presumably, a lower MPG 20%
PHEV+$10,000
10%
15.0
15.0
13.7
12.8
12.5
wouldbeassociatedwithgreatersavingsand
0%
higherpurchaseprobabilitiesforhybrids.The
<16MPG
16.0 17.9
18.0 20.9
21.0 23.9
24+MPG
MPGofVehicle
dataindicated,however,thatthisassumption
was not true (see Chart 11 and Table 2). Indeed, purchase probabilities were largely independent of
MPG estimates, with only the owners of the most fuel efficient vehicles responding significantly
differently and in the opposite direction than predicted based on costs. Vehicle MPG was also a
Page25
significant and positive predictor in all the regressions, although the size and significance of the
coefficientdeclinedasthecostpremiumrose(seeTable5).Itwouldseemthatthosethatwerealready
mostconcernedwithvehicleMPG,asdemonstratedbythehighfueleconomyoftheircurrentvehicles,
werealsomorelikelytofavorthepurchaseofaPHEVoranHEV.
Miles Driven. The dominant factor in explaining the amount spent on gasoline is the total
number of miles driven. The greater the
Chart12:
numberofdailymiles,themorerespondents
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyDailyMilesDriven
shouldfavorPHEVs(seeChart12).Unlikethe
PurchaseProbability
dataforMPG,thetotalnumberofdailymiles
70%
58.5
55.9
60%
driven did have a significant impact on PHEV
54.3
51.6
HEV+$1,500
46.2
50%
PHEV+$2,500
purchase probabilities across groupings. For
51.1
48.9
40%
45.7
45.1
PHEVs that cost an additional $2,500, the
38.1
PHEV+$5,000
30%
32.6
32.3
28.9
28.6
probability of purchase rose 10.8 points
20%
25.1
PHEV+$10,000
10%
15.7
15.5
between those whose daily trips were in the
13.1
12.8
11.1
0%
lowest fifth of the distribution and those in
Under10
10 19miles 20 29miles 30 49miles
50ormore
DailyMilesDriven
the highest fifth. For PHEVs that cost an
additional$5,000,thegainwas7.2pointsand foranadditionalcostof$10,000itwas4.4points.Allof
thesedifferencesweresignificantatthe95%levelofconfidence(seeTable2a).Inasimilarmanner,for
HEVsthedifferenceinpurchaseprobabilitiesbetweentheindividualswiththeleastandgreatestvehicle
miles travelled per day was 9.7 points. In the regressions, however, daily miles driven were not a
significantpredictorinanyofthemodels(seeTable5).Theeffectofdailymilesdrivenwaseffectively
mutedbymonthlygasexpenditure(thePearsoncorrelationcoefficientwas0.59betweenmilesdriven
andgasexpenditures),withbothvariablesbeingdominatedbythepaybackvariable
HighwayMiles.Whileitwasbeyondthescopeofthesurveytodetermineprecisevehicleusage
patterns, respondents were asked for the
Chart13:
percentageofthetotalmilesthatweredriven
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyPercentHighwayMilesDriven
on highways. Unlike for HEVs, there are
PurchaseProbability
70%
substantial enhancements to fuel efficiency
56.0
55.9
HEV+$1,500 55.5
60%
53.4
providedbyPHEVsinhighwayaswellas local
PHEV+$2,500
45.5
50%
49.7
48.6
driving. The data indicated that the highest
46.2
45.9
40%
PHEV+$5,000
38.1
30%
PHEV purchase probabilities occurred in the
32.4
31.5
29.8
29.2
20%
24.5
PHEV+$10,000
middlefifthofthedistribution,amongdrivers
16.3
10%
15.1
13.2
13.0
10.6
who drove between 20% and 49% on
0%
Under5%
5% 19%
20% 49%
50% 74%
75%ormore
highways. To be sure, the relationship was
PercentHighwayMilesDriven
not symmetrical in that the PHEV purchase
probabilities among those that drove the most highway miles were only slightly and insignificantly
lower, while those that drove the least highway miles (those in the bottom quintile) reported
significantlylowerprobabilities.ThesametrendwasevidentwhenHEVpurchaseswereconsidered(see
Chart 13 and Table 2a). Those who had the lowest highway mile percentage clustered
disproportionately among those who drove the fewest miles (See Table 15a). This relationship was
Page26
confirmedinthemultivariatemodel.Theregressionsfoundasmallbutpersistentlynegativeeffectfor
thosewhodrovethehighestproportionofhighwaymilesacrossallhybridsandallpremiums(seeTable
5). This negative relationship between highway miles and preferences for hybrid may reflect
assumptionsonthepartofrespondentsthattheoverallsizeofthehybridwouldtoosmallortoolightto
bestservetheirneedsforhighwaydriving.
ImpactofCurrentVehicleOwnership
PreferencesforPHEVsarelikelytodifferbythetypeofvehiclecurrentlyowned,whetheritwas
purchasedneworused,itscurrentage,andthetotalnumberofvehiclesownedbythehousehold.For
thisreport,vehiclesleasedforpersonalusearetreatedasowned.
TypeofVehicle.Thetypeofvehiclecurrentlydrivenrepresentsarevealedsetofpreferences
about the potential uses and features valued
Chart14:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyTypeofCurrentVehicle
by the consumer. While the survey did not
obtain detailed data about all features, the
PurchaseProbability
70%
57.6
56.9
vehicleswereclassifiedbymajortype.PHEV
60%
HEV+$1,500 52.9
47.4
50%
purchase probabilities, not surprisingly, were
52.4
PHEV+$2,500
50.5
40%
44.5
40.9
the lowest for owners of pickups; these
PHEV+$5,000
30%
33.5
33.0
28.7
owners frequently use these vehicles in
20%
25.7
PHEV+$10,000
15.8
10%
connection with work, for hauling larger
14.7
13.3
11.1
0%
objects,orfortowingpurposesandwouldbe
Pickup
Car
SUV
Van
mostconcernedabouthorsepower(seeChart
TypeofCurrentVehicle
14).Vans,ontheotherhand,aremorefrequentlyownedbyhouseholdswithyoungchildren,andthese
owners were the most predisposed to PHEVs. Owners of SUVs, vehicles likely to have lower fuel
efficiency, were also more likely to express higher PHEV purchase probabilities. The same trend was
foundwithHEVpurchases(seeTable2a).RegressionanalysisfoundthatownersofvansandSUVswere
significantlymorelikelytofavorhybridvehiclescomparedwithcarowners,althoughnotforaPHEVthat
costanadditional$5,000ormore.Pickupownerscomparedwithcarownersweremorelikelytofavor
HEVsbutnotPHEVs(seeTable5).
NeworUsedPurchase.Initially,onlyconsumersinthemarketforanewvehiclewillhavethe
opportunity to purchase a PHEV. In addition
Chart15:
toconcernsaboutnewtechnology,thereare
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyNew/UsedVehiclePurchase
a number of consumers who prefer to avoid
PurchaseProbability
70%
the steep depreciation of vehicles associated
55.8
60%
HEV+$1,500
50.0
with the first year of ownership. Moreover,
50%
PHEV+$2,500V
48.1
whetheravehiclewaspurchasedneworused
40%
42.8
PHEV+$5,000
30%
is related to the income and age of the
31.2
27.1
20%
PHEV+$10,000
household. It is therefore of some
10%
14.3
12.6
importancetodeterminetherelativestrength
0%
New
Used
of interest in PHEVs among new vehicle
HowPurchasedCurrentVehicle
buyers. Since someone could switch and
Page27
become a new vehicle buyer specifically to purchase a PHEV, and since younger consumers are more
likely to have purchased a used vehicle and switch to purchasing new vehicles in later life, it is
nonetheless of some interest to determine PHEV purchase probabilities by whether they purchased
theircurrent vehiclenew orused.Thedataindicatethatnewvehicle purchasersweremorelikelyto
favor a PHEV purchase, but the differences were only significant for PHEVs at an additional cost of
$2,500.NewvehicleownerswerealsomorelikelytopreferanHEVpreference(seeChart15andTable
2a). The regressions, however, never indicated a significant lower probability of a hybrid purchase
among owners of used vehicles compared with new vehicle buyers (see Table 5). The univariate
relationshipreflectsthecommoninfluenceofincomeonnewvehiclepurchasesandhybridpreferences.
AgeofVehicle.Onemightspeculatethattheolderthecurrentvehicle,themorelikelythatit
will need to be replaced, and the individual
Chart16:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAgeofCurrentVehicle
would have been more likely to consider
PurchaseProbability
whichvehicletopurchasenext.Ontheother
70%
56.8 HEV+$1,500 54.7
56.1
60%
hand,owninganewervehiclecouldindicatea
47.2
PHEV+$2,500
50%
higher importance given to this purchase or
50.5
47.9
47.8
40%
PHEV+$5,000
38.8
simply that given the respondents economic
30%
33.5
31.3
30.2
situation,thepurchasewasmorelikelytobe
20%
24.2
PHEV+$10,000
10%
15.4
15.0
13.3
new. Significantly higher purchase
11.1
0%
probabilities were found for owners of
0 2years
3 5years
6 9years
10yearsorolder
AgeofCurrentVehicle
vehicleslessthan3yearsoldwhencompared
with purchase probabilities for those owners
withvehicles10yearsorolder(seeChart16). ThistrendwasevidentforbothPHEVsandHEVs.There
wasnosignificantdifferencebetweenthepurchaseprobabilitiesforownersof35yearand69yearold
vehicles,exceptforthescenariowherePHEVscost$10,000morethanaconventionalvehicle(seeTable
2a).Theageofthevehiclethattheindividualcurrentlyownsneverprovedsignificantintheregressions,
suggestingthattheageofthevehiclesimplyreflectedtheeconomicanddemographiccharacteristicsof
theindividualandnottheirpreferencefornewercars(seeTable5).
NumberofHouseholdVehicles.Householdswithjustonevehiclehaveagreaterneedtoobtain
a dependable vehicle, whereas multiple
Chart17:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyNumberofVehiclesOwned
vehicle households can more easily manage
PurchaseProbability
theriskofavehiclemalfunctioning.Thedata
70%
56.0
60%
54.8
indicate that onevehicle households were
HEV+$1,500
47.7
50%
theleastlikelytofavorpurchasingaPHEVat
48.9
48.7
40%
each premium level (see Chart 17 and Table
38.1 PHEV+$5,000
30%
32.7
30.9
2a). Whether households owned two or
20%
23.8
PHEV+$10,000
15.8
10%
14.3
three vehicles or more, however, had no
10.3
0%
additional impact. This trend was also
One
Two
Threeormore
NumberofVehicleOwned
observedforHEVpurchasepreferences. The
multivariate model found a significant
positiveeffectonlyfortheprobabilityofpurchasingaPHEVatanadditional$10,000(seeTable5).This
Page28
suggeststhatthenumberofvehiclesisprimarilyafunctionofincome,andhouseholdsthatowntwoor
morevehiclesgenerallyhavehigherincomes.
ImpactofHouseholdDemographics
The demographic and economic characteristics of the household as well as its geographic
locationarehypothesizedtohaveamajorimpactonpreferencesforPHEVs.Totalincomedetermines
the ability to purchase vehicles, which are typically the second most expensive purchase made by
households.Theageofthehouseholdplaystwomajorroles.Ageactsasaproxyforlifecycle,withthe
demands for personal transportation increasing until middle age and then rapidly declining in
retirement. Second, age along with education is typically associated with environmental and
technologicalviewswhichmayaffectdemandforPHEVs.Theregionanddegreeofurbanizationofthe
residentiallocationcanbeexpectedtohaveanimpactonthewillingnessofindividualstoconsiderthe
purchaseofaPHEV.
AgeofHouseholder. PHEV purchase probabilities showed little variation for consumers

under age 54, but at older ages the
Chart18:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAgeSubgroups
probabilities dropped off sharply (see Chart
PurchaseProbability
18). Perhaps it is the unchanged views
70%
HEV+$1,500
59.6
59.4
56.8
55.4
60%
among those under age 55 that is more
PHEV+$2,500
50%
53.4
surprising than the rapid falloff among older
51.4
50.2
37.2
46.9
40%
PHEV+$5,000
consumers. The hypothesis that younger
30%
35.3
34.8
33.8
29.7
29.3
PHEV+$10,000
people are more environmentally conscious
20%
16.4
16.1
10%
15.7
15.4
14.8
wouldimplygreaterinterestthanisapparent
6.4
0%
among those under 35. The falloff among
1834
3544
4554
5564
65+
AgeofHouseholder
olderconsumersmaybeduetolesseneduse
of vehicles, especially after retirement, or their lower level of comfort with new technology. In fact,
thoseover65werethemostlikelytodriveninemilesorless,asshowninTable14.Thechangefrom
ages45to54tothoseoverage65amountedtoadeclineofabout50%inPHEVpurchaseprobabilities.
A similar trend was observed for HEV purchases (see Table 2b). In the multivariate model, older
individuals were significantly less likely to favor the purchase of a hybrid vehicle, with most of the
impactonpurchaseprobabilitiesoccurringamongthoseoverage60(seeTable5).
IncomeofHousehold.The income of the household proved to be a strong correlate of
consumers who expressed interest in the
Chart19:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyIncomeSubgroups
purchase of a hybrid vehicle (see Chart 19).
PurchaseProbability
Households were divided into income
70%
63.7
57.5
60%
quintiles, with the top quintile expressing a
54.1
HEV+$1,500 50.5
56.2
50%
purchaseprobabilitythatwasabouttwicethe
51.0
48.3
PHEV+$2,500
36.7
40%
40.7
sizeoftheprobabilityreportedbyconsumers
39.0
30%
PHEV+$5,000
32.7
30.8
28.9
in the lowest income quintile for each of the
20%
24.9
PHEV+$10,000
19.5
17.2
10%
14.0
cost premiums. In general, at each higher
12.8
12.2
8.5
0%
quintile, consumers reported a significantly
Bottom
2ndFifth
Middle
4thFifth
Top
IncomeofHousehold
Page29
higherpurchaseprobability(seeTable2b).Notethatthesizeoftheprobabilitygainswasmuchsmaller
forpurchasingaPHEVthatcostanadditional$10,000comparedwithonethatcostanadditional$2,500
(an increase of 11 points compared with a 27.3 point gain). The multivariate model confirmed the
independent impact of income on hybrid purchases, although as the cost premium increased, the
impact of higher income declined (See Table 5). It was somewhat surprising that at the highest
premium, income had no impact, suggesting that the purchase of a PHEV at an added $10,000 was
influencedbyfactorsotherthantheabilityoftheindividualtobuyaPHEV.
Education of Householder. Higher education was associated with significantly higher
probabilities of purchasing both HEVs and
Chart20:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyEducationSubgroups
PHEVs (see Chart 20 and Table 2b). People
PurchaseProbability
with graduate degrees held purchase
70%
63.7
58.0
60%
probabilities that were 18.4 percentage
52.6
HEV+$1,500
50%
55.0
43.8
points higher than those with a high school
51.4
40%
44.4
education or less when the PHEV was
37.5
36.6
30%
33.5
28.6
presented as costing $2,500 more, and 15.4
20%
22.1
17.7
10%
15.3
13.4
percentagepointshigheratanadditionalcost
10.1
0%
of$5,000,and7.6percentagepointshigherat
HighSchorLess
SomeCollege
CollegeDegree
GradStudies
EducationofHouseholder
an additional cost of $10,000. To be sure,
income is likely to differ across education
subgroups,butsocialattitudesdoaswell.ThistrendwasalsoobservedfortheHEVpreferences,with
thosewhoheldgraduatedegreesreportinga19.9percentagepointgreaterprobabilitythanthosewith
high school educations or less. The multivariate analysis found education to be the most important
demographiccharacteristicassociatedwithpreferencesforhybrids(seeTable5).
Gender. There is some evidence that men and women hold different preferences for vehicle
attributes, including the size of the engine
Chart21:
and other factors that would impact fuel
PHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesbyGenderofRespondent
economy. The data included in this survey
PurchaseProbability
70%
indicatethatwomendrivelessthanmen,are
60%
53.7
52.8
HEV+$1,500
slightly more likely to be environmentalists,
50%
PHEV+$2,500
47.6
and are less likely to favor the adoption of
40%
44.2
PHEV+$5,000
30%
new technology. Nonetheless, the data on
29.8
29.2
20%
PHEV+$10,000
HEV and PHEV purchase probabilities were
10%
13.6
13.6
nearly identical for men and women (see
0%
Male
Female
Chart 21). The slightly higher purchase
GenderofRespondent
probabilities for HEVs for women were not
significantlydifferentfrommen(seeTables2band5).Whenothercharacteristicsarecontrolledforin
the multivariate analysis, however, women are less likely to favor the purchase of a PHEV at an
additionalpremiumof$2,500,butarenotdifferentthanmenathighercostpremiums(seeTable5).
Page30
HomeOwnership.HomeownersaremorelikelytohaveoutletstopluginaPHEVthanthose
who rent. While recharging stations may be
Chart22:
available in the future, at the present time a
PHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesbyHomeownership
renter may not be able to find a place to
PurchaseProbability
70%
regularly recharge their vehicle. Concerns
60%
53.8
HEV+$1,500
50.7
about this ability to charge may therefore
50%
PHEV+$2,500
46.8
40%
influencethedecisionregardingthepurchase
40.5
PHEV+$5,000
30%
of a PHEV. Renters are also more likely to
29.9
27.2
20%
PHEV+$10,000
resideinurbanregion,andtobeyoungerand
10%
13.8
12.7
havelowerincomes.Atanadditionalcostof
0%
Own
Rent
$2500, homeowners are significantly more
HomeownershipStatus
likelytopurchaseaPHEVthanthosewhodo
notowntheirownhome(SeeChart22andTable2b).Athigherpremiums,thesedifferencesdisappear.
Intheregressionmodels,whetherornottherespondenthasaplugthataPHEVcouldbeconveniently
rechargedatcompletelydominatedwhethertheresidencewasownedorrented.Thesevariableswere
highly correlated and to reduce the level of collinearity, whether the residence was owned or rented
wasdroppedfromtheregressionmodels.
Region.Thecostsofoperatingvehicles,fuelprices,andconcernsaboutvehicleemissionsare
knowntovarybyregion(seeChart23).While
Chart23:
these collective differences have made
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRegionofResidence
residents of the West and Northeast more
PurchaseProbability
70%
HEV+$1,500
predisposedtoPHEVs,theoveralldifferences
55.7
55.7
60%
52.6
51.1
between these regions and those that reside
PHEV+$2,500
50%
48.4
48.1
40%
44.4
44.0
in the Midwest and South were barely
PHEV+$5,000
30%
33.0
significant. For example, the difference was
30.0
28.5
27.8
20%
PHEV+$10,000
aboutfivepercentagepointsorlessacrossall
16.4
10%
13.1
12.8
12.7
0%
three cost premiums for PHEVs. The same
West
Northeast
Midwest
South
trend was observed for HEV purchases (see
RegionofResidence
Table 2b). In the multivariate model, only
residents of the West were significantly more likely to favor the purchase of a PHEV (compared to
residents of the Midwest, the omitted category in the set of dummy variables). The likelihood that
Western residents would purchase fell as the premium rose, however (see Table 5). This finding
underscoresapreviousresult:nomatterhowpredisposedconsumersaretothepurchaseofaPHEV,as
thepricepremiumincreases,theprobabilityofpurchaseuniformlydeclinesforallgroups.
Page31
Metropolitan Status. People who live in the most urbanized areas may think of their
transportation choices differently than those
Chart24:
living in the most rural areas. Some urban
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyResidentialArea
areas have alternative transportation, higher
PurchaseProbability
70%
gasoline prices, and more emissions
56.0 HEV+$1,500
55.3
60%
50.9
50.6
49.4
50%
regulations,whilesomeruralareasmayentail
PHEV+$2,500
48.6
47.5
40%
45.4
43.5
driving much greater distances, fewer
42.5
PHEV+$5,000
30%
30.8
30.8
30.5
available gas stations and greater
28.7
27.3
20%
PHEV+$10,000
inconvenience stemming from a possibly
16.8
10%
14.7
13.9
13.2
11.8
0%
unreliable vehicle. Contrary to expectations,
CityCenter InCountywith Suburban
MSAwithout NotinMSA
CityCntr
County
CityCntr
most of the differences between
AreaofResidence
metropolitan regions were insignificant,
although the most rural residentsthose not living in an MSAwere the least likely to favor the
purchase on a PHEV. In contrast, those living in an MSA with no city center were the least likely to
preferanHEVpurchase;however,thisresultwasnotsignificantlydifferentfromthevaluesreportedby
individuals residing in other areas (see Chart 24 and Table 2b). Metropolitan status did not show a
significantrelationshipwithPHEVpreferences,butlivinginaruralareawassignificantlyrelatedtoHEV
preferences(seeTable5).
RechargingHybridVehicles
The perceptions of PHEVs held by consumers may be affected by the different requirements
associatedwithowninganelectricvehicle.Householdsneedaccesstoanoutlettorechargethevehicle,
for example, which may imply that they would not be able to park in their driveways or in the street
eveniftheyhadgarages.Apartmentbuildingsmaynothaveavailableoutletsorresidentiallocationsin
thecitymaynotevenprovideparkingspaces.Whilethelackofrechargingfacilitiesathomeisaclear
drawback to owning a PHEV, presumably, over time, public or employer provided recharging stations
may become available. Nonetheless, the survey made no attempt to ask consumers to assume that
public recharging stations would be available; the survey was limited to simply asking about their
current situation. The survey did collect data on a potential advantage of PHEVs based on the
conclusion that recharging at home was more convenient and that they would not have to go to
gasolinestationsasfrequently.
These recharging requirements are reflected by a range of demographic characteristics and

environmental attitudes. Parking places and outlet availability are related to the type of residence
respondents currently occupy, and by extension to their income, age and urban status. Other
characteristics, such as responsiveness to offpeak pricing, aversion to gas stations and minimum all
electricrangearecomponentsofarespondentstastesandpreferencesregardingtheenvironmentand
the new technology embodied in PHEVs. Of particular interest is whether these preferences have an
independentinfluenceonhybridpurchaseprobabilitiesaftertheeconomics,demographicsandlocation
ofthehouseholdaretakenintoaccount.
Page32
RegularParkingPlace.Reliableaccesstoaparkinglocationthathasaccesstotheequipment
needed to recharge a PHEV is an important
Chart25:
consideration for consumers. When
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRegularParkingLocation
evaluating PHEVs, those with access to an
PurchaseProbability
70%
attached garage showed the greatest
56.6 HEV+$1,500
60%
54.9
53.5
50.9
probabilityofpurchase,asshowninChart25
PHEV+$2,500
50%
42.8
49.3
45.9
45.7
40%
and Table 2c. Onethird of all drivers
43.5
PHEV+$5,000
36.5
30%
32.0
reported that they regularly parked their
29.7
28.8
27.9
20%
22.6
PHEV+$10,000
vehicleina garage(see Table16). Following
10%
15.2
13.7
13.5
13.4
9.1
0%
this group in purchase probability were the
AttachedGarage
Driveway
Street/structure
Unattached
Carport
Garage
respondents that regularly parked in a
LocationRegularlyPark
driveway, street or structure, or an
unattached garage. The purchase probabilities among these last three groups were not significantly
differentfromoneanother;however,theirprobabilitiesweresignificantlydifferentfromthefinalgroup
ofrespondents:thosewhoparkedtheirvehiclesinacarport,whichaccountsfor10%ofalldrivers.This
segment of respondents showed the least preference for both PHEVs and HEVs. The overall trend in
purchase probabilities is notable. There may be a link between type of parking location, income,
metropolitan status, and environmental attitudes. The multivariate model indicated that regularly
parking in an attached garage did not significantly relate to preferences for hybrid vehicles, but was
significantly associated with access to a plug to recharge a PHEV. The lack of a significant effect on
hybrid purchase probabilities was due to the strong association of an attached garage with economic
and demographic characteristics of the household (see Table 16). Its high correlation with having an
electrical outlet indicated it was best to drop this variable from the multivariate model to decrease
collinearityamongtheindependentvariables.
AccesstoElectricalOutlet.SometypeofaccesstoanoutletisrequiredforrechargingaPHEV.
There was no attempt to determine if the
Chart26:
outlet would meet local electric codes (for
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyAvailableOutlettoRecharge
example, if the outlet was on a dedicated
PurchaseProbability
70%
circuit), or to ascertain the location or
55.9
60%
HEV+$1,500
propertiesoftheelectricallineconnectingthe 50%
45.1
PHEV+$2,500
49.2
hybrid vehicle with electricity and so forth. 40%
PHEV+$5,000
30%
34.6
32.1
No prompts were given regarding the
20%
PHEV+$10,000
20.7
necessary qualities of a circuit for charging a
10%
14.7
9.7
0%
PHEV overnight. Access to an outlet to
Yes
No
recharge the vehicle had a significant impact
HaveAvailableOutlettoRechargePHEV
on the purchase probabilities for PHEVs (see
Chart26andTable2c).Atanadditionalcostof$2,500,theavailabilityofanoutletraisedtheprobability
ofpurchaseby14.6percentagepoints,atanextra$5,000,thegainwas11.4percentagepointsandat
$10,000itwas5.0percentagepoints.Themultivariatemodelconfirmedthathavinganelectricaloutlet
is a significantly predictor of preferences for PHEVs, even when other characteristics of the person or
householdareconsidered(seeTable5).WhilesimilartrendswerefoundforHEVs,thesignificanceis
Page33
likelytobeduetothefactthatinterestinallhybridsishigheramongthosewithanoutlet,suggesting
theincompletecontrolinthemodelofotherassociatedvariables,suchasincomeorwealth.
Impact on Electrical Grid. The electricity generating capacity of utility companies could face
significant problems if people choose to
Chart27:
recharge their PHEVs during peak electrical
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyRechargingPreferences
loads. One possible solution to this problem
PurchaseProbability
70%
HEV+$1,500 59.5
60.1
is timeofuse management: consumers are
57.0
60%
PHEV+$2,500
encouraged by timeofday pricing to shift
50%
53.3
50.0
48.0
36.8
40%
theirdemandforelectricitytothelaterhours.
PHEV+$5,000
30%
35.3
32.0
31.6
Given that electric is cheaper than gasoline,
26.9
20%
PHEV+$10,000
consumersmaynotbe asresponsiveasmight
17.5
16.8
16.4
10%
13.6
7.5
0%
be expected. Indeed, among all consumers,
Always
Mostly
Sometimes
Noimpactonwhen
just 35% reported that they would always
charge
RechargeAfter9PMifDiscounted
recharge their vehicle when lower electric
rates were available after 9 p.m., 39% reported that they would recharge most of the time when
reduced rates were available, 5% only some of the time, and 21% reported that discounted rates
wouldhavenoeffectonwhentheyrecharged(seeTable18).
TheprobabilityofaPHEVpurchasewassignificantlyrelatedtotheirlikelihoodofrespondingto
timeofusepricing(seeChart26andTable2c).Predictably,thosewhowouldnotshifttheirelectricity
demandwerealsotheleastlikelytopurchasePHEVs.Thosewhowere65orolderandlowerincome
clustered disproportionately in this group (See Table 18). In contrast, those that indicated that they
wouldrechargeafter9pmatleastsomeofthetimeweremorelikelytopurchaseaPHEV.Thosethat
werewillingtoshiftchargingtimereportedpurchaseprobabilitiesthatwerenearlytwiceaslikelytobuy
atallthreetestedadditionalcosts(seeTable2c).Themultivariatemodelconfirmedthatawillingness
toignoreoffpeakpricinghadasignificantlynegativeimpactonpurchaseprobabilities,exceptforPHEVs
that carried a $10,000 premium (see Table 5). This indicates that saving money is an important
motivation for potential PHEV buyers, but a $10,000 premium is simply too much to justify based on
costsavings.
AvoidingGasStations.Theabilitytoavoidgasstationsbyrechargingathomewasanattractive
feature of the PHEVs. Overall, 67% viewed
Chart28:
avoiding gas stations as a very important
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyDesiretoAvoidGasStations
advantage of PHEVs compared with just 10% 70% PurchaseProbability
58.0
who thought it was not important (see 60%
HEV+$1,500
50.4
Table19).Importantly,consumerswhorated 50%
52.6
40.5
avoiding gas stations as very important had 40%
PHEV+$5,000 40.5
30%
34.1
20.9
significantly higher purchase probabilities for 20%
23.5
25.4
PHEV+$10,000
PHEVs.Consumersthatthoughtitwasvery 10%
14.2
15.9
8.0
11.8
5.0
5.4
2.9
0%
important to avoid gas stations held PHEV
VeryImportant
SomewhatImportant NotveryImportant NotatallImportant
probabilities that were nearly three times as
AvoidingGasStations
large as those who thought avoiding gas
Page34
stations was not important (see Chart 28 and Table 2c). The multivariate model found wanting to
avoidgasstationstobeanextremelystrongandindependentpredictorofpreferencestowardhybrid
vehicles (see Table 5). This may reflect antipathy toward the dirty technology of gas stations.
Particularly, as Table 19 indicates, those with the strongest preference for avoiding gas stations are
more educated, had higher incomes and lived in more urban areas. A frequent hypothesis is that
women are particularly troubled by having to visit gas stations (for safety and other reasons); this
hypothesiscouldnotbeacceptedfromthedata.
AllElectric Range. Another important consideration for consumers was the minimum all
electric range provided by a PHEV. The
Chart29:
majority of all consumers required a
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMinimumAllElectricRange
minimum all electric range between 20 and
PurchaseProbability
70%
61.0
60.9
60.2
60 miles, which encompasses the vast
HEV+$1,500
60%
PHEV+$2,500
majority of all daily miles travelled. Two
45.6
50%
55.5
54.8
43.4
52.7
40%
PHEV+$5,000
thirds of the respondents indicated ranges
37.7
37.0
30%
35.1
34.6
33.9
between 20 and 80 miles, with just 12% of
PHEV+$10,000
20%
24.4
21.2
18.0
consumers reporting a minimum of 20 or
16.2
10%
14.6
11.8
9.0
0%
fewermilesand23%reportingaminimumof
Less20miles
20 39
40 59
60 79
80milesor
80 miles or more (see Table 20).
more
MinimumAllElectricRangeDesired
Interestingly, most consumers said they
preferredasubstantiallyhigherallelectricrangethantheirreporteddailymilesdriven,suggestingthat
theoccasionallongertripwasalsoafactorintheirpreferences(seeTable20).
IndividualswhoweremostlikelytopurchaseaPHEVwerethosewhoseallelectricrangeneeds
were 40 to 60 miles, although their purchase probabilities were not significantly different from those
thatreportedaminimumallelectricrangethatwasslightlylower(20to39miles)oraslightlyhigher(60
to79miles)minimumallelectricrange.Overall,thisindicatesthatconsumerswouldacceptanyPHEV
thathadanallelectricrangeinthebroadintervalof20to80miles(seeChart29andTable2c).Itwas
somewhat surprising that at both extremes, either a minimum allelectric range of fewer than 20 or
morethan80miles,consumersgavesignificantlylowerpurchaseprobabilities.Themultivariatemodel
bore this out, with preferences for an allelectric range below 20 or above 80 associated with
significantlylowerpurchaseprobabilitiesforhybrids(seeTable5).ThosewhoneededthePHEVforless
thantwentymileslikelywouldnothaverealizedsufficientgassavingstomaketheaddedpremiumcost
effective.PerhapstheupperextremeresponsesignaledthattheseconsumersdidnotexpectPHEVsto
be appropriate for anything but a very tiny vehicle or perhaps they simply set a threshold that was
unlikelytobemetanytimesoon.
AttitudestowardtheEnvironmentandTechnology
Attitudestowardtheenvironmentandnewtechnologywerepowerfulpredictorsofwhowould
beanHEVearlyadopter.Hybridvehiclesaregenerallythoughttobefavoredbythosewhobelievethat
gasoline powered vehicles harm the environment, by those who want to visibly demonstrate their
commitmenttoacleanerenvironment,andbythosethatwanttobethefirsttoadoptnewtechnology.
Page35
Whileeconomicfactorscanbeexpectedtodominateamatureindustry,theseenvironmentalviewsmay
becriticaltogainearlysalessoastoprovideformassproductionefficienciesthatlowerfuturecosts.
MainAdvantageofPHEVs.Consumerswereaskedwhattheythoughtwasthemainadvantage
of a plugin electric hybrid vehicle: reducing
Chart30:
theamountofmoneyspentonfuel,reducing
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyMainAdvantageofPHEVs
vehicleemissions,orreducingdependenceof
PurchaseProbability
70%
60.1
foreign oil. Given the high price of gasoline
HEV+$1,500
60%
52.6
52.6
PHEV+$2,500
during the time of the survey, it was
50%
50.4
46.7
40%
44.6
somewhatsurprisingthatjust31%thoughtit
PHEV+$5,000
30%
34.9
was reducing the money spent on fuel.
29.9
28.2
20%
PHEV+$10,000
18.4
Rather, the majority of consumers (54%)
10%
13.1
12.6
0%
reportedthatitwasreducingdependenceon
ReduceEmissions
ReduceMoneySpenton ReduceDependenceon
foreignoilthatwasthemainadvantage.By
Fuel
ForeignOil
MainAdvantageofPHEVs
far, reducing vehicle emissions was the least
frequently cited advantage, reported by just 15% of all consumers (see Table 21). The distribution of
responses, however, not only indicates the secondary role of environmental attitudes for most
consumers, but that consumers were more concerned about being vulnerable to sudden changes in
globaloilprices.Variablegasolinepricesmakeitdifficulttoplanbudgetsinadvance,andvariationsin
oilpriceshavefaroutstrippedvariationsinthecostofhouseholdelectricity.Theoveralldistributionof
responsesshowedfewdifferencesacrosseconomicanddemographicgroupings,althoughtheyoungest
quintile saw a greater advantage in reducing fuel costs and the oldest saw the greatest advantage in
reducing foreign dependence (see Table 21). Even among the highest educated group, those with
graduatedegrees,just20%thoughttheprimaryadvantageofPHEVswasthereductioninemissionsthat
theywouldfacilitate.
Although just 15% of all consumers thought the primary advantage of PHEVs was to reduce
emissions,theseconsumersvoicedhigherPHEVpurchaseprobabilitiesthatwidenedtosignificanceas
the cost premiums increased. The multivariate model further confirmed that wanting to reduce
emissionsprovidesaboosttotheprobabilityofpurchasingPHEVsatcostpremiumsof$5,000orabove
(seeTable5).Thosewhothoughtreducingdependenceonforeignoilreportedinsignificantlydifferent
purchaseprobabilitiescomparedtotheomittedcategoryofreducingthecostoffuel.
DemonstrationofEnvironmentalCommitment.Consumerswereaskediftheirpurchaseofa
PHEV would overtly demonstrate their
Chart31:
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnvironmentalCommitment
commitment to buying products that were
environmentally friendly. Toyota, for 70% PurchaseProbability
61.7
HEV+$1,500
example,hasdeliberatelystyledthePriusina 60%
49.1
45.2
52.9
distinctive manner so that it would be 50%
40%
PHEV+$5,000 43.0
immediately recognized as a hybrid vehicle. 30%
39.4
34.4
23.6
27.3
Such social statements of an individuals 20%
25.6
PHEV+$10,000
16.9
16.2
tastes and preferences, referred to as 10%
10.9
12.6
10.9
4.3
0%
badging, have long been recognized as
VeryImportant
SomewhatImportant NotVeryImportant NotatAllImportant
ImportanceofBuyingEnvironmentallyFriendlyProducts
Page36
having a powerful influence on purchases of many different products. Indeed, half of all consumers
reported that showing a commitment to the environment through the purchase of a PHEV was very
important. Just 15% reported that such a purchase was either not very important or not at all
important, with the balance reporting it somewhat important in demonstrating an environmental
commitment. There was little variation in these views across economic and demographic subgroups
(seeTable22).
TheseassessmentsofwhetheraPHEVdemonstratesasocialcommitmenttotheenvironment
hadasignificantimpactontheprobabilityofapurchase(seeChart31).ThosethatagreedthataPHEV
made a very important statement about the owners commitment to the environment reported a
purchaseprobabilitynearlytwiceashighasthosewhothoughtthepurchasedidnotdemonstrateany
messageacrossalltestedadditionalcostsforthePHEV.Themultivariatemodelconfirmedthatshowing
astrongcommitmenttotheenvironmentbypurchasingahybridwassignificantatallcostpremiums,
althoughitseffectfellasthepricepremiumrose(seeTable5).Conversely,theviewthatitwasnotat
allimportanttodemonstratecommitmenttotheenvironmentwassignificantlyrelatedtolowerhybrid
purchase probabilities. This suggest that social factors are just as important as economic factors in
spurring the adoption of hybrid vehicles, and increasing social forces pushing toward the purchase of
hybridsmaybecheaperthanusingeconomicincentives.
Higher Product Prices, Lower Operating Costs. PHEVs share the characteristic of having a
higher purchase price but lower operating
Chart32:
costs with a number of other products. For
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyBuyingFluorescentBulbs
instance, compact fluorescent bulbs cost
PurchaseProbability
70%
HEV+$1,500
more but promise substantial environmental
57.8
57.0
60%
53.6
PHEV+$2,500
46.4
benefits and significantly lower electric
50%
50.3
50.1
46.3
40%
consumption. Consumers were asked about
PHEV+$5,000
37.6
30%
33.6
33.4
their past purchases of fluorescent bulbs as
29.2
PHEV+$10,000
20%
22.5
an indicator of their willingness to pay more
16.6
16.2
10%
13.6
8.6
0%
initially to save on electric costs over the life
Allthetime
Mostofthetime Someofthetime
Neverbuy
of a product. Fluorescent bulbs were
CompactFluorescentBulbsPurchaseFrequency
reported to be purchased all the time by
24% of all consumers and never purchased by the same proportion (see Table 23). Between these
extremes, more consumers purchased fluorescent bulbs some of the time compared with most of
thetime(30%versus22%).Therewereafewdifferencesbyeconomicanddemographicsubgroups;
notably lower income households were more likely to report never purchasing fluorescents and
residentsoftheWestwerethemostlikelytoalwayspurchasetheseenergysavingbulbs(seeTable23).
When compared with the probabilities of a PHEV purchase, those that reported buying
fluorescents always or most of the time reported significantly higher purchase probabilities than
thosethatreportedneverpurchasingafluorescentbulb(seeChart32andTable2d).Themultivariate
models indicated that this buying preference had a slight impact on hybrid purchase probabilities,
mostlyonthenegativeside;thatis,thosewhoneverboughtcompactfluorescentbulbswerealsoless
Page37
likelytofavorthepurchaseofahybridvehicle(seeTable5).Whethertheseconsumersaresimplymore
traditionalorarelessconcernedwiththeenvironmentcannotbedeterminedbythecollecteddata.
EarlyAdoptionofNewTechnology.SincePHEVsrepresentanewtechnologythatisvirtually
untested in mass markets, there are some
Chart33:
risksaswellasbenefits.Somepeopleprefer
PurchaseProbabilitiesbyFirstAdopterPreference
not to be the first to own new technology
PurchaseProbability
given the higher likelihood of problems,
70%
HEV+$1,500 57.1
60%
54.2
defects,faultydesign,orpurchasingproducts
51.9
47.8
PHEV+$2,500
whosetechnologybecomesquicklyoutdated. 50%
49.9
48.0
40%
44.4
PHEV+$5,000
Others derive more benefits from being the
37.7
30%
35.4
33.0
27.8
first to own new and experimental
20%
PHEV+$10,000
22.3
17.0
16.6
10%
technology,includingsocialbenefitsaswellas
12.3
8.1
0%
greater influence on the ultimate
StronglyAgree
Agree
Disagree
StronglyDisagree
Iwanttobefirsttoownnewtechnology
developmentoftheproductitself.Therisks
ofbeingthefirsttoownnewtechnologyare generallyviewedaslarge,withjust7%ofallconsumers
reportingthattheystronglyagreedwiththestatementthattheywantedtobethefirsttoownnewor
advancedtechnology.Halfthatnumber,14%,saidthattheystronglydisagreed(seeTable24).Overall,
thosethatdidnotwanttobethefirsttoownnewtechnologyoutnumberedtheproportionthatwanted
tobefirstby57%to41%.
People that viewed themselves as wanting to be first to own new technology reported PHEV
purchase probabilities that were significantly higher than those that did not want to be first to own
untested technology. The difference between the two extreme responses was about ten percentage
points(seeChart33andTable2d).Themultivariatemodelindicatedthatbeingstronglyopposedtothe
early adoption of new technology proved to be a significant factor in reducing PHEV purchase
probabilities,whilestronglyfavoringtheadoptionofnewtechnologyhadgenerallyinsignificanteffects
(seeTable5).
MultivariateModelsofHybridPurchaseProbabilities
Itisconvenienttosummarizetheresultsofthemultivariatemodelsbydividingtheindependent
variablesusedtopredicthybridpurchaseprobabilitiesintothreegroups.Thefirstgroupingincludesthe
characteristics of the respondents current vehicle, how it is used, its fuel efficiency, and the price of
gasoline.Thesecondgroupingincludestheeconomicanddemographiccharacteristicsoftheindividual.
Thefinalgroupingincludestheenvironmentalandotherattitudesoftherespondenttowardpricingand
technology.Thedivisionisnotstrict,butoneofconveniencesinceafewoftheindependentvariables
ineachgroupcouldhavebeenassignedtoanothergroup.Theunderlyingreasonforthisdivisionisthat
manyofthehypothesesabouttheappealofhybridvehiclesdoconformtothisdivision.
The prime advantage of the division is to distinguish the relative contributions to the
explanation of hybrid purchase probabilities across the characteristics of the vehicle, the objective
Page38
characteristics of the person, and the impact of environmental attitudes. Such an assessment will be
useful in any recommendations about how to best promote the adoption of more energy efficient
vehicles.
Vehicle Characteristics. How long it would take the consumers to offset the initial cost
premium to purchase a hybrid had a
Chart34:
significant impact on purchase probabilities.
RegressionModelsofPHEVPurchaseProbabilities
(Signofcoefficient&*=.05,**=.01,***=.001)
This relationship reflects the standard
HEV@ 25%fuel
economic theory of comparing benefits and
No cost
No cost
+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
added
added
costs(seeChart34andTable5).Thepayback
Years toBreakEven
N/A
***
N/A
***
***
**
period was calculated based on the reported
Current gasprice
Currentelectricprice
expenditure on gasoline, given their current
MPGofvehicle
+***
+***
+***
+***
+**
+*
Milesdriven
**
vehicle and driving habits, and adjusted for
Percenthighway miles
***
***
*
***
*
*
the change in gas prices expected over the
Van
+***
+**
+**
+***
Pickup
+*
nextfiveyearsbytherespondent.
SUV
+**
+**
+***
+***
Age ofvehicle
While differences in the fuel

Numberofvehicles
+*
efficiency of the respondents vehicle should
havebeenalreadyreflectedintheestimated
payback period, the MPG of the vehicle proved to have a significant independent effect on purchase
probabilities, but in the opposite direction from what would have been expected. Hybrids purchase
probabilitiesweresignificantlyhigheramongthosewhoalreadyownedavehiclewithahighMPGfuel
efficiencyrating.ThehighertheMPGrating,themoretheyfavoredthepurchaseofahybrid.Rather
thanactingasanindicatorofpotentialfuelsaving,theMPGratingoftheircurrentvehicleactedasan
indicatoroftheirrevealedpreferenceforfuelefficientvehicles.Whilethisfindingisnotsurprising,it
does indicate that consumers who purchase a PHEV are likely to tradein vehicles that are already
relativelyfuelefficient.
The only other characteristic that had a universal influence on the purchase probability for
hybridswastheproportionofhighwaymilestherespondentdrove(controllingforthetotalnumberof
miles driven): a greater proportion of highway miles was associated with lower hybrid purchase
probabilities.WhilethisfindingwasconsistentwithachievingthehighestfueleconomyinanHEV,it
wasasurprisingassociationforPHEVsandmayindicatethatmoreknowledgeaboutthe operationof
PHEVsisneededbyconsumers.
Owning a pickup, van or SUV was associated with somewhat higher hybrid purchase
probabilitiesthanowningacaraslongasthepremiumwas$2,500orless.Presumablytheseconsumers
valued the unique characteristics of these vehicles, apart from the vehicles fuel efficiency, and were
onlylikelytogivethemupatrelativelylowpremiums.
Itisalsoofsomeinteresttonotewhatwasprovedtobeinsignificant.Therisktothehousehold
of the new PHEV technology in meeting its transportation needs was assumed to be lower for
households that owned multiple vehicles. The data, however, found that the number of household
Page39
vehicles was only related to PHEV purchase probabilities at the $10,000 premium. The age of the
vehiclealsoneverprovedsignificant,despiteplausiblereasonsforownersofnewervehiclestoprefer
PHEVs.
Demographic Characteristics. The education of the respondent demonstrated the strongest

relationship with hybrid preferences. Highly
Chart35:
educated people were more favorably
disposedtowardthepurchaseofhybridsatall
HEV@25%fuel
cost premiums. It is of some importance to
No cost
No cost
+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
added
added
note that even when controlling for income
Ageinyears
**
**
*
Age >60dummy
**
**
*
and environmental attitudes, both highly
Household income
+***
+***
+**
+*
related to educational attainment, education
Educationinyears
+***
+***
+**
+***
+***
+**
Gender
*
*
retained its significance as a predictor. This
West
+*
+*
+*
+*
suggests that neither income nor the
Northeast
South
environmental attitudes that were actually
Urban
measuredcapturedalloftheinformationthat
Rural
+*
Haveelectricaloutlet
+**
+***
+***
+***
+*
isrelevantforhybridpreferences.Education
may be a surrogate for lifetime income, and
thusaproxyforeconomicstatus,orfortheabilityofpeopletomakecomplexpurchasingdecisionsthat
involvecomparingfuturepayoffstocurrentcosts.
Higherincomehouseholdsweremorepredisposedtopurchaseahybrid,buttheimpactfellas
the PHEV premium rose and disappeared when the premium reached $10,000. The age of the
respondent was also generally significant, with older consumers expressing a smaller likelihood of
purchase, especially those over age 60. The dropoff in purchase probabilities after age 60 was
independentoftheirdrivinghabitsaswellastheirenvironmentalattitudesandsuggestsamorebasic
resistancetochangeamongolderconsumers.
Themostimportantcharacteristicofthehousingunitwasnotwhereitwaslocated(exceptfor
theWest),thedegreeofurbanization,whethertheyregularlyparkedthevehicleinagarage,orowned
or rented the dwelling unit, but whether they had an available electrical outlet. Having an electrical
outletwasabletocombineinonevariabletheeffectsofthesevariousfactors.Thissuggeststhatthe
presenceorabsenceofanelectricoutletnotonlyisakeydeterminantofPHEVpurchasepreferences,
butakeyplanningfactorforelectrical utilities.Moreover,ifPHEVsaretoexpandbeyondthisgroup,
planningforpublicsmartmetersisanessentialcomponentoftheoverallstrategy.
Thereislikelytobeawidevarietyoflocalregulatorycodesontheuseofelectricitytorecharge
PHEVs,suchasarequirementtohaveadedicatedlineandnotusingextensioncordsthatextendacross
lawns or sidewalks, and so forth. It is unclear whothe utilities, the dealership, or the customer
shouldhavetheprimaryresponsibilitytoensureasaferechargingoperation.
Page40
Environmental and Other Attitudes. The social implications of purchasing a hybrid are an
important component that can motivate the
Chart36:
actual purchase. Indeed, attitudes towards
the importance of signaling commitment to
HEV@25%fuel
the environment played a strong role in
No cost
No cost
+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
added
added
explaining hybrid preferences (See Chart 36 Ignoreoffpeak pricing **
***
***
***
**
+***
+**
+***
+***
+***
+***
and Table 5). Strongly supporting the notion Avoid gasstations
MinAER<20
**
***
***
***
*
that the purchase of a hybrid would MinAER>60
***
***
***
***
***
***
+*
+*
+*
+***
demonstrate their commitment to the Reduceemissions
Reducedependence
environmentwasassociatedwiththehighest Buy Greenimportant
+***
+***
+***
+***
+***
+**
BuyGreennotimport.
***
***
***
***
***
***
levels of hybrid preference, whereas strongly
Alwaysbuy greenbulbs
opposingthisnotionwasassociatedwithlow Neverbuygreenbulbs
*
**
*
**
purchase probabilities. The challenge is EarlyAdopter
LateAdopter
**
**
***
***
turning the social desirability of owning a
hybridvehicleintoanactualpurchase.ThisstrongassociationsuggeststhatproducingPHEVsthatcould
be immediately recognized as hybrids by the general public is a key component of capitalizing on a
hybrid purchases social significance and a successful advertising campaign by private companies or
publicagencies.
It is of some importance to contrast the social desirability of a PHEV purchase with attitudes
toward the ability of hybrids to reduce vehicle emissions or reduce the dependence on foreign oil
supplies. The advantage of reducing dependence on foreign oil supplies was never significant, and
reducingemissionswassignificantonlyforHEVsandforPHEVswithpremiumsabove$5,000.Whereas
the social desirability component of a hybrid purchase was universally significant, viewing the main
advantage of hybrids as reducing emission was highly significant only for those willing to pay an
additional$10,000surelythemostcommittedenvironmentalists.Theseresultssuggestthatthemost
effectivestrategytoinitiallypromotePHEVsistofocusonthesocialdesirabilityofowningahybridand
reducing harmful emissions rather than a focus on the more widely agreed upon goal of achieving
energyindependence.
PeoplespreferencesfornewtechnologyalsoplayedaroleinPHEVpreferences,butnotinthe
mannerwidelyhypothesized.Thetypicalhypothesisisthatpeoplewhohaveanactivepreferencetobe
a firstadopter of new technology would express higher PHEV purchase probabilities. The data,
however,indicatedjusttheopposite:thosewhoexpressedapreferencetoavoidthepurchaseofnew
technology,whatcouldbecalledalateadopter,weresignificantlylesslikelytofavorthepurchaseofa
PHEV.ThesepreferencesweresignificantacrossallofthePHEVpremiumlevels.Thissuggeststhatif
PHEVtechnologycanbegintoestablishitself,newgroupsofconsumerswillquicklybecomeopentoit.
Incontrast,beinganearlyadopterwasnotsignificantcomparedwithmoreneutralattitudestoward
technology.
TheothermajorfactorpredictingincreasedpreferenceforPHEVpurchasewasastrongdesire
toavoidgasstations.Whetherthisreflectsthegreaterconvenienceofhomerecharging,adistastefor
therelativelydirtiertaskofgasrefueling,orajudgmentaboutsafetywasnotdetermined.Evenwith
Page41
thelevelofexpenditureatthegasstationandenvironmentalattitudescontrolledfor,thisaversionto
gasstationsretaineditssignificanceacrossallpremiumcostlevelsforHEVsandPHEVs.
Finally,theallelectricrangeofaPHEVwasacriticaldeterminantofitsappeal.Importantly,an
allelectric range of less than 20 miles or more than 60 miles was outside the range specified in the
questionsonPHEVpurchaseprobabilities.Consumersthatheldpreferencesforaminimumallelectric
range outside of the 20 to 60 miles specified in the questions expressed significantly lower purchase
probabilities. Presumably, those that preferred a shorter or longer allelectric range were not fully
representedinthecollecteddata.
ComparativeStrengthofFactors.Thethreebroadgroupsofvariablescanbeconceptualizedas
representing: (1) the economic benefits of a
Chart37:
hybrid vehicle based on the respondents
current vehicle, its characteristics and how it
MarginalandTotalR2
is used; (2) the income, location, and other
factorsthataffecttheabilityoftheconsumer
HEV@25%fuel
to purchase a hybrid vehicle, and (3) the
No cost
No cost
+$1,500
+$2,500 +$5,000 +$10,000
added
added
impact of environmental and technological
.029
.033
.020
.037
.029
.020
attitudes on hybrid purchase probabilities. VehicleCharacteristics
DemographicCharacteristics .079
.088
.064
.096
.095
.039
While none of these areas were exhaustively
EnvironmentalAttitudes
.106
.099
.126
.126
.086
.064
represented, the data did provide an overall
assessment of which area had the greatest
TotalR2
.215
.220
.210
.258
.210
.123
impact on hybrid purchase probabilities,
controlling for the high intercorrelations
amongthesebroadfactors.Anassessmentoftheaddedexplanatorypowerofeachsetwasestimated
based on the assumption that the vehicle characteristics were the primary factors, followed by
demographic characteristics, and lastly by environmental attitudes. The results strongly support the
conclusionthattheenvironmentalvariablesarethemostimportant,astheyexplainednearlyhalfofthe
totalvarianceevenaftertakingthevehicleanddemographiccharacteristicsintoaccount(seeChart37).
Incontrast,theleastvariancewasexplainedbythecharacteristicsofthevehicleandhowitwasused,
which are the prime determinants of the economic benefits of hybrids compared with conventional
vehicles. Indeed, the estimated payback period, combined with the revealed preferences regarding
auto type based on the respondents current vehicle and actual driving behavior explained the least
varianceless than 4%. Even the demographic characteristics of the individual and the dwelling unit
explainedmorevariance.
Thetotalamountofexplainedvariancebasedonallthreefactorswasbetween20%and25%,
withthesoleexceptionofaPHEVwiththehighestpremiumof$10,000,wherethepredictorsaccounted
for just half as much variance. Importantly, as the premiums for a PHEV increased, the amount of
explained variance decreased. This probably reflects the diminished amount of variance in the
probability measures at the higher premium levels (at a premium of $2,500, 23% reported a zero
probabilityofpurchase,butatapremiumof$10,000,56%reportedazeroprobabilityofpurchasinga
PHEV).
Page42
Conclusions
Thesurveyfoundagooddealofinterestamongconsumersforpluginhybridelectricvehiclesas
well as a good deal of resistance based on the estimated cost of this new technology. Consumer
acceptance was not solely determined by costs, however, as environmental and other noneconomic
factorsinfluencedthelikelihoodoffuturepurchasesofhybridelectricvehicles.Nonetheless,thelong
termsuccessofthesevehiclesinthemarketplacewilldependonwhetherthistechnologycanprovidea
highervaluetoconsumerswhencomparedwithalternativetechnologies.Providinggreaterconsumer
valueincludesthereliability,durability,andconvenienceofthenewtechnologyaswellasfuelsavings
andthepurchasepriceofthevehicle. Theseare complexjudgments that cannotbefullycapturedin
populationsurveysbeforethevehicleshavebeenactuallyproduced.
Thisresearchprojectfocusedonadeterminationofwhichfactorswouldfacilitatesalesofplug
inhybridelectricvehiclesandwhichfactorswouldrepresentbarrierstothesuccessfulintroductionof
these vehicles. A successful introduction is based on more than just sales in the first few years. A
successfulintroductionimpliesanupwardtrajectoryinsalesthatenablescostreductionsthoughmass
production and in turn fosters even greater investments in advanced technology that acts to lower
pricesandincreaseperformanceevenmoreinthefuture.Needlesstosay,thesuccessfulintroduction
ofpluginhybridelectricvehiclesisanecessarybutnotasufficientconditionfortheultimatesuccessof
this new technology. Other competing technologies will continue to challenge plugin hybrids for
marketsupremacy.
Pluginhybridelectricvehiclesweredescribedtosurveyrespondentsingeneralterms,withthe
implicitassumptionthatthesevehicleswerelikeconventionalvehiclesineverywayexceptforhowthe
vehicle was powered and refueled. Consumers were asked to consider two key factors about these
hybrids:thesavingsachievableonfuelcostsandtheaddedcostpremiumtopurchasethevehicle.The
questionswerebasedonestimatesofthelikelyfuelsavingsandcostpremiumsforthehybridvehiclesin
five to ten years (in todays dollars). The cost premiums presented to consumers for PHEVs were
$2,500,$5,000,and$10,000andthefuelsavingswereestimatedat75%comparedwithaconventional
gasoline engine. Consumers preferences for new vehicles were elicited in terms of purchase
probabilitiesorthelikelihoodofafuturepurchase.
With an additional cost of $2,500, the mean purchase probability for a plugin hybrid electric
vehicle was 46%, which dropped to 30% for a PHEV that cost an additional $5,000, and to 14% at an
additionalcostof$10,000.Theselargechangesinpurchaseprobabilitiestoincreasingpricepremiums
weregreaterthancouldbejustifiedbasedonpurelyeconomicrationales.Basedonconsumersactual
gasexpenditureswiththeircurrentvehicles,theaveragepaybackperiodfortheaddedpremiumtobe
offsetbyfuelsavingsrangedfrom2.0to8.5yearsataninflationadjusteddiscountrateof3%.Tobe
sure,newtechnologyentailsrisksthatmayentailhighercostsoralowerresalevaluewhichwouldmean
that these payback periodswereunderestimated.Atarealdiscountrateof10%,thepaybackperiod
ranged from 2.2 to 12.9 years. Indeed, other studies of purchases of energyefficient household
appliances have found even longer payback periods implied by the actual purchase decisions of
consumers,uptoa20%discountrate.
Page43
Three general sets of factors were investigated to gain a better understanding of how
consumers judged the potential purchase of a plugin hybrid electric vehicle. The first general factor
wasthecharacteristicsofthevehiclethatconsumerscurrentlyownandtheirdrivinghabits,determining
the cost implications of vehicle purchase decisions. The second general factor focused on the socio
economic characteristics of the household, its geographic location, and recharging capabilities. The
third factor was environmental and other noneconomic attitudes that may be related to preferences
forhybridvehicles.
The impact of these three general factors can be summarized as follows: although economic
considerations had a significant influence on hybrid purchase probabilities, environmental and other
noneconomicattitudeshadanevenlargerimpact.Itisarathercommonplacefindingthattheutility
that consumers draw from vehicles depends on more than a strict economic costbenefit calculation.
Even when vehicles are equivalent in every way from an economic point of view, different makes,
models, and styles connote different social messages about the owner. A strong appeal of plugin
hybrids is that consumers believe such a purchase would vividly demonstrate their commitment to a
cleanerenvironment.Suchbeliefsareimportantfortheintroductionofpluginhybrids,actingtooffset
some of the higher economic costs through social benefits. Such positive social benefits can be
expectedtobeinverselyproportionaltothenumberofhybridowners;atsomepoint,thepositivesocial
benefitsofowningahybridmayswitchtorisingnegativesocialimplicationsaboutthosewhoshunmore
fuel efficient vehicles. Such a purely social dynamic, however, cannot exist independent of economic
factors,especiallysincevehiclesaregenerallythesecondmostexpensivepurchasemadebyconsumers.
ThefirstbuyersofPHEVsarelikelytocurrentlyownvehicleswithrelativelyhighfuelefficiency
ratingsandfavorthepurchaseofthevehicleforenvironmentalreasons.Theeconomicjustificationfor
thepurchasewillnotbegreatsincethepaybackperiodtooffsetthecostpremiumwillbelongerthan
forsomeonewhoownsalowmileagevehicle.Thefirsttimebuyerwillbehighlyeducatedandthinkitis
importanttosignalhisorhercommitmenttoacleanerenvironmenttoothers.FirsttimePHEVbuyers
are likely to own their own home, have convenient access to an electric outlet, and relish the
opportunitytoavoidgasstationsandrechargetheirvehiclesovernightatoffpeakpricing.Althougha
first time PHEV buyer is likely to have relatively high income, these consumers were as sensitive as
moderateorlowerincomeconsumerstothepotentialsizeofthepremiumsonPHEVs.
The economic challenges to the successful introduction of PHEVs are diverse, although the
reactions to the premiums charged for PHEVs were nearly universal. As the premiums for PHEVs
doubledfrom$2,500to$5,000anddoubledagainto$10,000,therewasauniformdeclineinpurchase
probabilities across all of the socioeconomic characteristics measured, across all differences in the
characteristics of the vehicles they currently owned and how they were used, and across all of the
environmentalattitudesmeasured.Onaverage,thepurchaseprobabilitiesdeclinedby16percentage
points for each doubling of the initial cost premium. This was true no matter how different the
subgroups initial purchase probability was from the overall average; each doubling prompted a very
similardeclineinthelikelihoodofpurchase.Thiswasthemostvividandconvincingdemonstrationof
thesensitivityofconsumerstothepriceofPHEVs.Atapremiumof$10,000,56%ofallrespondents
reportedthattherewasnochancethattheywouldeverpurchaseaPHEV,morethandoublethe23%
Page44
responseatapremiumof$2,500.Theaveragepurchaseprobabilityatthe$10,000premiumfellby70%
tojustaoneinsevenchanceofpurchasefromnearlyaoneintwochanceatthe$2,500premium.
Given that a tax credit amounting to $7,500 will be available to buyers of PHEVs, this would
makeaPHEVpurchasesmuchmorelikely,atleastintheory.Theproblemisthatmostbuyerswould
have to finance the total price of the vehicle, including the premium, before they could claim the tax
credit.Thiswouldlimitthealreadynarrowgroupofnewvehiclebuyerstothosewhoweremorelikely
topaycashratherthanfinancethevehicle.Ifthistaxcreditcouldbeconvertedintoareductionofthe
purchaseprice,perhapsthroughtheinterventionofmanufacturersordealers,itsimpactonsaleswould
bemuchgreaterandmoreequitabletothosewhopurchasedoncredit.
Thedataprovidestrongevidencethatacombinationofeconomicandsocialincentivesmaybe
themosteffectiveforthesuccessfulintroductionofPHEVs.Indeed,socialforcesplayanimportantrole
in most purchases, including vehicles. The survey documented the significant influence of hybrid
vehiclesinsignalingpeoplescommitmenttoacleanenvironment.Nonetheless,theimportanceofthe
attitudes toward the environment in explaining hybrid purchase probabilities provides less compelling
evidence of the underlying demand than if preferences for hybrids were mostly based on economic
criteria. The presumption is that following the introduction of PHEVs, if the vehicle is priced so that
consumers can recoup their initial investments over a reasonable time period, consumers would find
ampleeconomicjustificationforthepurchaseofaPHEV.Thecriticalroleofenvironmentalandother
noneconomicattitudesistoprovidetheinitialburstofinterestandsalestopropelPHEVsappealtothe
massmarket.
Page45
Bibliography
AmericanRecoveryandReinvestmentActof2009.111thCong.,1stSess.(2009),DivisionB,Title1,
SectionD,Number14.
Diamond,D.TheImpactofGovernmentIncentivesforHybridElectricVehicles:EvidencefromUS
States.EnergyPolicy,Volume37(3):97283(2009).
Edmunds,HybridBuyingGuide:WhatYouShouldKnowBeforeBuyingaHybridin2009.
<http://www.edmunds.com/hybrid/2009/beforebuy.html>.FirstAccessedMarch2009.
ElectricPowerResearchInstitute.ComparingtheBenefitsandImpactsofHybridElectricVehicle
OptionsforCompactSedanandSportUtilityVehicles.PaloAlto,CA:2002.1006892.
Hausman,JerryA.,individualDiscountRatesandthePurchaseandUtilizationofEnergyUsing
Durables,BellJournalofEconomics,Vol.10,No.1(Spring1979),pp.3354.
Parks,K.CostsandEmissionsAssociatedwithPlugInHybridElectricVehicleChargingintheXcelEnergy
ColoradoServiceTerritory.DepartmentofEnergy,OfficeofEnergyEfficiencyandRenewable
Energy,TechnicalReportNREL/TP6404140,May2007.
Simpson,A.Cost/BenefitAnalysisofHybridElectricandPlugInHybridElectricVehicleTechnology.in
PlugInHybridElectricVehicleAnalysis.DepartmentofEnergy,OfficeofEnergyEfficiencyand
RenewableEnergy,MilestoneReportNREL/MP54040609,November2006.
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration.CrudeOilImportsfromPersianGulf
2008.ReleasedMarch02,2009.
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration.CurrentandHistoricalMonthlyRetail
Sales,RevenuesandAverageRevenueperKilowatthourbyStateandbySector(FormEIA826).
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html>.LastUpdatedMarch24,
2009.LastAccessedApril10,2009.
EnergyInformationAdministration,EmissionsofGreenhouseGasesintheUnitedStates2007,
December2008,DOE/EIA0573(2007).
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration,ShortTermEnergyOutlook.CrudeOil
Price.ReleasedJune092009,2009.
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration,ShortTermEnergyOutlook.Gasoline
andCrudeOilPrice.ReleasedFebruary10,2009.
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration,ElectricPowerMonthly.Table5.3.
AverageRetailPriceofElectricitytoUltimateCustomers:TotalbyEndUseSector,1994through
November2008.February13,2009.
Page46
USDepartmentofEnergy,EnergyInformationAdministration,ElectricPowerMonthly.Table5.6.A.
AverageRetailPriceofElectricitytoUltimateCustomersbyEndUseSector,byState,November
2008and2007.February13,2009.
USDepartmentofTransportation,BureauofTransportationStatistics,"NationalTransportation
Statistics,2006."Table423,December2006.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,LightDutyAutomotiveTechnologyandFuelEconomyTrends:
1975through2008.September2008,EPA420R08015.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency,LightDutyAutomotiveTechnologyandFuelEconomyTrends:
1975through2008.September2008,EPA420S0803.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2008FuelEconomyGuide.
<http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml>.LastUpdatedOctober8,2008.FirstAccessed
January2009.
USEnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ReformulatedGas.
<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/information.htm>.LastUpdated16July2008.FirstAccessed
January2009.
Page47
Appendix:NonSurveyData
EstimatesofVehicleFuelEfficiency.Respondentsprovidedtheyear,makeandmodeloftheir
vehicle,andthesedatawerecombinedwiththeEnvironmentalProtectionAgencysfueleconomydata
to determine city and highway miles per gallon (MPG) data for each respondents vehicle. 14 The EPA
updateditstestingregimenin2008toreflectrealworldconditionsandprovidesrecalculatedestimates
forvehiclesmanufacturedbetween1985and2007,reflectingthemorestringentconditionsappliedin
thistest. 15 Carsmanufacturedbetween1978and1985havenothadtheirfueleconomydataupdated
toreflectthenewtests,sothedatafromtheoldtestswereusedinstead.SincetheEPAprovidesno
dataforfueleconomybefore1978,vehiclesolderthan1978wereassignedtheMPGdataforthe1978
modelyear.
Surveyrespondentsgenerallyprovidedonlythemakeandmodelofthecar,withoutspecifying
theparticularengine.Generally,thesedifferenceswithinamodelarereflectedinslightMPGvariations.
Whenthereweremultipleversionsofagivenmodelavailable,themediancityandhighwayMPGswere
used. The EPA treats twowheel drive and fourwheel drive versions of a vehicle as different models,
but both groups were combined when constructing the medians. MPG estimates based on flex fuels
werealsoignoredunlesstherespondentspecifiedthattheirvehicleusedthem.
Vehicles exceeding an 8500 pound gross vehicle weight rating are excluded from the EPAs
testingrequirements. 16 Sincesomerespondentsreporteddrivingvehiclesthatexceededthissize,itwas
necessarytoassignanMPGvaluetothesetrucks.Thevaluechosenwas10cityMPGand11highway
MPG,whicharethelowestvaluesforanyvehicleinthesample.Thesevalueswereselectedunderthe
assumptionthattheheavytrucksandvanswouldhavepoorerfueleconomythananyofthelightercars,
trucksorvans.
Fueleconomyestimatesareessentiallybestcasescenarios,arisingfromtestsofvehicles with
new engines and no significant wear. These tests also assume proper maintenance and use of the
correctgradeofgas. 17 Suboptimalconditionswillleadtolowerfueleconomy.Itispossiblethatover
thecourseofuse,vehiclefueleconomybeginstofall,systematicallybiasingtheofficialEPAestimates
foroldercarsupward.However,therearenoacceptedmethodsfordiscountingtheMPGofavehicleas
it ages, and the condition of a respondents car is unknown, so this issue is left unresolved. Since a
varietyofothergaspriceanddrivingbehaviorvariablesareincluded,thebiasfromthisoverestimation
ofMPGshouldbesmall.
14
Allfueleconomydatatakenfromwww.fueleconomy.gov
15
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.2008FuelEconomyGuide.
<http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml>.UpdatedOctober8,2008.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.
Page48
GasPricesattheTimeoftheSurvey.EnergypricesaretakenfromdataprovidedbytheEnergy
InformationAdministration.Datawereavailableatthenationalandregionallevelforallrespondents,
and at the state and metro level for certain areas. The closest match to the respondents actual
residentiallocationwasused.Valuesweretakenfromtheendoftheweekwhentheinterviewoccurred
andarefortheaverageofallgradesandallformulations.
The EIA provides price information regarding different gasoline grades and formulations.
Certain metropolitan areas, particularly those in the Northeast Corridor, and all counties in California,
aremandatedtousecleanerburningreformulatedgasoline(RFG)undertheCleanAirAct. 18 SinceRFG
is required in many major metro areas, the gas price data employed in this analysis employs both
conventionalandreformulatedgasolinepricesinarrivingatapriceestimate.TheEIAweightsvarious
gastypesinarrivingatanallgradesandallformulationsprice,basingtheweightsonsalesanddelivery
datafromotherEIAsurveys.
Electricity Prices at the Time of the Survey. Electricity price data are taken from the Energy
Information Administration.TheseriesusedfortheregressionvariableistheMonthlyAverageRetail
Price Residential (c/kWh), available at the state level. 19 The revised figures from the month of the
interviewwereused.
18
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency.ReformulatedGas.<http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/information.htm>.Last
Updated16July2008.FirstAccessedJanuary2009.
19
CurrentandHistoricalMonthlyRetailSales,RevenuesandAverageRevenueperKilowatthourbyStateandby
Sector(FormEIA826).EnergyInformationAdministration.
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html>.LastupdatedMarch24,2009.Lastaccessed
April10,2009.
Page49
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ____________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table1
PurchaseProbabilitiesforHybridVehicles
Zero
PurchaseProbabilities
1%33% 34%66% 67%99% 100%
Total
Cases
HEV
Nomileageorcostdatagiven
21
14
25
25
15
100%
2329
Fuelcost25%&vehiclecost+$1,500
18
13
25
29
15
100%
2327
Nomileageorcostdatagiven
25
19
27
20
100%
2336
23
16
26
25
10
100%
2334
33
27
27
10
100%
2330
56
28
13
100%
2333
PHEV
The questions were:

Vehicle manufacturers currently offer for sale hybrid vehicles which combine an ordinary gasoline engine with a battery powered electric motor
to increase fuel efficiency. The battery is recharged by the vehicle itself during normal driving, with most of the gas savings generated during city
driving. On a scale of zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not buy and one hundred means you definitely would
buy, what are the chances that you might buy a hybrid vehicle sometime in the future?
The cost of driving a hybrid vehicle had two major components: the cost of the vehicle itself and the cost of gasoline. While hybrids reduce
gasoline consumption, the hybrid vehicle itself typically costs more than an ordinary vehicle. If a hybrid vehicle reduced total fuel costs by twenty
five percent and the vehicle itself costs one thousand five hundred dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances that you might
buy a hybrid vehicle, using the same scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not buy and one
hundred mean you definitely would buy sometime in the future?
Vehicle manufacturers are also developing a more fuel efficient type of hybrid vehicle, which is called a plugin hybrid. The battery on this vehicle
is recharged by plugging the vehicle into a standard electrical outlet. Starting each day with a fully recharged battery, the vehicle could travel
from ten to sixty miles on battery power. When the battery runs low, the gasoline engine would automatically generate the power to run the
vehicle. On a scale of zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not buy and one hundred means you definitely would
buy, what are the chances that you might buy a plugin hybrid vehicle sometime in the future?
The cost of driving a plugin hybrid also has two major components: the cost of the vehicle itself and the total cost of electricity and gasoline.
While the plugin hybrids reduce overall fuel consumption, the plugin hybrid itself typically costs more than an ordinary vehicle. If a plugin
hybrid reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent and cost two thousand five hundred dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the
chances you might buy the plugin hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not buy
and one hundred means you definitely would buy?
What if a plugin hybrid that reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent cost five thousand dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are
the chances you might buy the plugin hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not
buy and one hundred means you definitely would buy?
What if a plugin hybrid that reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent cost ten thousand dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are
the chances you might buy the plugin hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not
buy and one hundred means you definitely would buy?
Note: Table is based on all vehicle owning households in which the respondent was a licensed driver. Table excludes "don't know" and "not
ascertained" responses. These replies averaged just 13 cases per question or about onehalf of one percent of all replies.
Page50
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles_________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table2
HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnergyCosts
(Standarderrorsofestimatesinparentheses)
NoCost
DataGiven
HEV
Fuelcost:25%
Vehcost:+$1,500
NoCost
DataGiven
AllHouseholds
50.7 (0.75)
53.3 (0.73)
42.0 (0.25)
45.8 (0.72)
29.5 (0.61)
13.6 (0.44)
GasPriceatTimeofSurvey
(EIAData)
$0.01$2.699
$2.70$3.619
$3.62$3.839
$3.84$4.139
$4.14ormore
48.0
51.3
53.7
50.6
49.8
(1.71)
(1.66)
(1.59)
(1.66)
(1.73)
50.9
52.0
56.5
54.6
52.1
(1.71)
(1.64)
(1.53)
(1.61)
(1.72)
40.7
42.4
44.9
41.8
40.1
(1.62)
(1.62)
(1.54)
(1.55)
(1.59)
44.6
46.4
47.3
45.8
44.5
(1.65)
(1.63)
(1.54)
(1.57)
(1.67)
28.0
29.5
31.4
29.4
28.9
(1.39)
(1.34)
(1.38)
(1.33)
(1.38)
13.1
13.9
14.6
13.2
13.2
(1.01)
(1.03)
(0.99)
(0.95)
(0.96)
RetailPriceofElectricity
(EIAData)
19.9centskWh
1010.9centskWh
1111.9centskWh
1214.9centskWh
15ormorecentskWh
50.2
47.5
52.7
51.1
53.6
(1.61)
(1.54)
(1.74)
(1.63)
(1.87)
52.7
49.6
56.0
54.0
55.5
(1.59)
(1.53)
(1.70)
(1.56)
(1.85)
42.6
40.7
41.7
43.0
42.2
(1.55)
(1.46)
(1.66)
(1.53)
(1.76)
45.2
44.3
47.3
46.7
45.4
(1.59)
(1.48)
(1.71)
(1.55)
(1.77)
28.0
28.7
30.6
31.0
29.1
(1.29)
(1.24)
(1.50)
(1.34)
(1.50)
12.3
12.7
13.2
16.5
12.9
(0.92)
(0.87)
(1.04)
(1.03)
(1.11)
ExpectationofGasPrice:FiveYears
$1$3.299
46.2 (1.74)
$3 30 $3 919
$3.30$3.919
49 9 (1.61)
49.9
(1 61)
$3.92$4.499
48.9 (1.68)
$4.50$5.339
55.6 (1.62)
$5.34ormore
54.4 (1.71)
46.9
51 5
51.5
53.5
58.9
56.9
(1.68)
(1 61)
(1.61)
(1.66)
(1.60)
(1.64)
37.9
43 5
43.5
40.4
44.0
45.4
(1.60)
(1 58)
(1.58)
(1.61)
(1.55)
(1.60)
41.9
46 2
46.2
42.7
50.1
49.5
(1.62)
(1 61)
(1.61)
(1.60)
(1.58)
(1.64)
26.7
30 0
30.0
26.9
31.6
33.1
(1.33)
(1 39)
(1.39)
(1.31)
(1.34)
(1.47)
12.7
14 4
14.4
11.9
14.4
15.1
(0.97)
(1 03)
(1.03)
(0.93)
(1.02)
(1.03)
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
43.7
51.4
52.0
55.6
54.0
(1.58)
(1.74)
(1.64)
(1.68)
(1.71)
44.8
53.9
55.3
57.6
57.4
(1.58)
(1.65)
(1.61)
(1.63)
(1.67)
36.3
43.2
44.8
47.0
42.7
(1.50)
(1.64)
(1.57)
(1.63)
(1.59)
37.6
46.2
47.4
51.1
49.8
(1.55)
(1.62)
(1.59)
(1.66)
(1.59)
23.4
29.3
29.9
34.6
33.1
(1.21)
(1.38)
(1.38)
(1.47)
(1.42)
9.0
14.1
14.9
16.2
15.7
(0.73)
(1.08)
(1.04)
(1.10)
(1.07)
VehicleFuelEfficiency
(EPAData)
115.9MPG
1617.9MPG
1820.9MPG
2123.9MPG
24MPGormore
50.2
47.6
52.0
50.7
57.0
(1.74)
(1.75)
(1.78)
(1.79)
(1.76)
52.3
50.9
54.7
53.1
59.0
(1.71)
(1.72)
(1.57)
(1.75)
(1.69)
42.3
40.3
42.9
42.4
45.8
(1.59)
(1.64)
(1.57)
(1.69)
(1.73)
45.2
44.7
46.7
45.4
50.9
(1.60)
(1.73)
(1.56)
(1.71)
(1.74)
28.4
30.0
30.3
28.9
32.6
(1.33)
(1.50)
(1.38)
(1.43)
(1.46)
12.5
15.0
13.7
12.8
15.0
(0.89)
(1.14)
(0.96)
(1.03)
(1.14)
Page51
PHEV
Fuelcost75%andVehicleCostof:
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ______________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table2a
HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyVehicleCharacteristics
NoCost
DataGiven
AllHouseholds
50.7 (0.75)
HEV
Fuelcost:25%
Vehcost:+$1,500
PHEV
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
NoCost
DataGiven
53.3 (0.73)
42.0 (0.25)
45.8 (0.72)
29.5 (0.61)
13.6 (0.44)
AverageMilesDrivenperDay
9milesorless
45.2
1019miles
52.1
2029miles
50.2
3049miles
55.2
50ormoremiles
51.1
(1.85)
(1.61)
(1.61)
(1.65)
(1.64)
46.2
54.3
51.6
58.5
55.9
(1.80)
(1.55)
(1.61)
(1.61)
(1.60)
37.0
43.6
41.2
47.0
41.4
(1.69)
(1.51)
(1.55)
(1.63)
(1.55)
38.1
45.7
45.1
51.1
48.9
(1.72)
(1.51)
(1.59)
(1.64)
(1.57)
25.1
28.6
28.9
32.6
32.3
(1.41)
(1.27)
(1.35)
(1.43)
(1.36)
11.1
12.8
13.1
15.7
15.5
(0.91)
(0.92)
(0.97)
(1.08)
(1.06)
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
44.9
51.1
55.2
53.2
49.7
(1.93)
(1.66)
(1.62)
(1.62)
(1.54)
45.5
55.5
55.9
56.0
53.4
(1.87)
(1.62)
(1.63)
(1.59)
(1.50)
36.3
42.3
45.0
45.7
40.9
(1.74)
(1.59)
(1.56)
(1.59)
(1.46)
38.1
45.9
49.7
48.6
46.2
(1.77)
(1.64)
(1.57)
(1.59)
(1.48)
24.5
29.2
32.4
31.5
29.8
(1.44)
(1.38)
(1.39)
(1.36)
(1.26)
10.6
13.2
16.3
15.1
13.0
(0.97)
(0.98)
(1.05)
(1.03)
(0.92)
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
50.5
43.6
56.7
54.2
(1.01)
(1.99)
((2.49)
.49)
(1.57)
52.9
47.4
57.6
56.9
(0.99)
(1.95)
((2.48)
.48)
(1.56)
41.2
36.8
46.4
46.6
(0.97)
(1.84)
((2.35)
.35)
(1.47)
44.5
40.9
52.4
5
.4
50.5
(0.99)
(1.86)
((2.44)
.44)
(1.47)
28.7
25.7
33.5
33.0
(0.83)
(1.55)
((2.20)
. 0)
(1.30)
13.3
11.1
14.7
4.7
15.8
(0.60)
(1.05)
((1.56)
.56)
(0.98)
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
52.5 (0.94)
Used
48.3 (1.24)
55.8 (0.91)
50.0 (1.23)
44.1 (0.89)
39.1 (1.17)
48.1 (0.90)
42.8 (1.20)
31.2 (0.78)
27.1 (0.98)
14.3 (0.58)
12.6 (0.69)
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
56.8
54.7
56.1
47.2
44.9
44.0
44.2
36.3
50.5
47.8
47.9
38.8
33.5
31.3
30.2
24.2
15.0
15.4
13.3
11.1
52.9
52.5
54.5
44.0
(1.60)
(1.41)
(1.43)
(1.52)
NumberofVehiclesOwned
One
47.5 (1.41)
Two
52.9 (1.18)
Threeormore
50.8 (1.30)
(1.52)
(1.41)
(1.42)
(1.50)
47.7 (1.39)
56.0 (1.16)
54.8 (1.26)
(1.52)
(1.37)
(1.37)
(1.42)
37.9 (1.30)
43.7 (1.13)
43.7 (1.26)
Page52
(1.52)
(1.39)
(1.39)
(1.44)
38.1 (1.32)
48.7 (1.14)
48.9 (1.28)
(1.31)
(1.23)
(1.19)
(1.15)
23.8 (1.07)
30.9 (0.97)
32.7 (1.13)
(0.97)
(0.97)
(0.80)
(0.81)
10.3 (0.73)
14.3 (0.69)
15.8 (0.88)
Table2b
HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyDemographicSubgroups
HEV
NoCost
Fuelcost:25%
DataGiven
Vehcost:+$1,500
NoCost
DataGiven
PHEV
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
AllHouseholds
50.7 (0.75)
53.3 (0.73)
42.0 (0.25)
45.8 (0.72)
29.5 (0.61)
13.6 (0.44)
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65orolder
56.3
57.2
55.3
51.4
35.6
(1.91)
(1.66)
(1.50)
(1.66)
(1.51)
56.8
59.4
59.6
55.4
37.2
(1.87)
(1.65)
(1.43)
(1.61)
(1.50)
43.7
46.9
47.5
43.7
30.0
(1.87)
(1.68)
(1.43)
(1.54)
(1.41)
50.2
51.4
53.4
46.9
29.3
(1.89)
(1.70)
(1.43)
(1.56)
(1.37)
34.8
35.3
33.8
29.7
15.7
(1.65)
(1.47)
(1.27)
(1.33)
(1.03)
16.4
16.1
15.4
14.8
6.4
(1.25)
(1.06)
(0.97)
(1.06)
(0.65)
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
37.6
48.1
52.2
53.0
60.1
(2.20)
(1.96)
(1.53)
(1.47)
(1.48)
36.7
50.5
54.1
57.5
63.7
(2.21)
(1.88)
(1.47)
(1.42)
(1.45)
31.2
37.7
44.6
45.1
49.4
(2.04)
(1.80)
(1.48)
(1.46)
(1.47)
28.9
40.7
48.3
51.0
56.2
(2.01)
(1.84)
(1.47)
(1.44)
(1.44)
17.2
24.9
30.8
32.7
39.0
(1.55)
(1.48)
(1.32)
(1.25)
(1.32)
8.5
12.2
12.8
14.0
19.5
(1.15)
(1.07)
(0.91)
(0.87)
(1.09)
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
41.0
50.4
55.1
61.8
(1.38)
(1.59)
(1.32)
(1.52)
43.8
52.6
58.0
63.7
(1.38)
(1.65)
(1.28)
(1.44)
34.6
41.2
45.3
51.4
(1.29)
(1.57)
(1.31)
(1.46)
36.6
44.4
51.4
55.0
(1.10)
(1.61)
(1.32)
(1.44)
22.1
28.6
33.5
37.5
(1.03)
(1.35)
(1.14)
(1.35)
10.1
13.4
15.3
17.7
(0.75)
(0.97)
(0.84)
(1.03)
Gender
Male
Female
50.1 (1.10)
51.2 (1.02)
52.8 (1.08)
53.7 (1.00)
43.2 (1.08)
41.1 (0.94)
47.6 (1.08)
44.2 (0.97)
29.8 (0.90)
29.2 (0.83)
13.6 (0.67)
13.6 (0.59)
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
50.8 (0.81)
50.5 (1.95)
53.8 (0.79)
50.7 (1.95)
42.5 (0.76)
39.5 (1.88)
46.8 (0.77)
40.5 (1.93)
29.9 (0.66)
27.2 (1.61)
13.8 (0.48)
12.7 (1.14)
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
53.2
49.9
52.4
49.0
(1.69)
(1.40)
(1.71)
(1.28)
55.7
52.6
55.7
51.1
(1.67)
(1.37)
(1.69)
(1.25)
45.2
41.5
42.7
40.2
(1.62)
(1.37)
(1.60)
(1.20)
48.4
44.4
48.1
44.0
(1.63)
(1.39)
(1.63)
(1.23)
33.0
28.5
30.0
27.8
(1.43)
(1.17)
(1.37)
(1.02)
16.4
12.7
13.1
12.8
(1.09)
(0.80)
(1.02)
(0.74)
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Incountryofcitycntr
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycntr
NotinMSA
53.8
47.1
53.9
51.1
46.8
(1.47)
(1.60)
(1.49)
(3.58)
(1.60)
56.0
50.9
55.3
49.4
50.6
(1.38)
(1.57)
(1.48)
(3.61)
(1.58)
43.9
40.3
44.2
42.1
39.1
(1.34)
(1.49)
(1.46)
(3.51)
(1.51)
47.5
43.5
48.6
45.4
42.5
(1.37)
(1.49)
(1.46)
(3.63)
(1.57)
30.5
28.7
30.8
30.8
27.3
(1.15)
(1.32)
(1.21)
(3.12)
(1.32)
14.7
13.2
13.9
16.8
11.8
(0.82)
(0.99)
(0.90)
(2.40)
(0.91)
Page53
Table2c
HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyChargingCharacteristics
NoCost
DataGiven
HEV
Fuelcost:25%
Vehcost:+$1,500
NoCost
DataGiven
PHEV
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
AllHouseholds
50.7 (0.75)
53.3 (0.73)
42.0 (0.25)
45.8 (0.72)
29.5 (0.61)
13.6 (0.44)
Attachedgarage
Unattachedgarage
Carport
Driveway
Street/lot/structure
53.2
46.4
40.2
51.3
55.3
56.6
50.9
42.8
53.5
54.9
44.7
42.1
35.8
41.4
43.5
49.3
43.5
36.5
45.9
45.7
32.0
27.9
22.6
29.7
28.8
15.2
13.7
9.1
13.5
13.4
HaveAvailableOutlet
toRechargePHEV
Yes
No
52.7 (0.83)
44.6 (1.65)
55.9 (0.82)
45.1 (1.61)
45.1 (0.81)
31.9 (1.44)
49.2 (0.81)
34.6 (1.50)
32.1 (0.71)
20.7 (1.14)
14.7 (0.52)
9.7 (0.79)
Rechargeafter9PMif
OfferedDiscount
Always
Mostofthetime
Someofthetime
Noimpactwhencharge
54.0
56.7
60.2
34.8
(1.30)
(1.10)
(2.60)
(1.69)
57.0
59.5
60.1
36.8
(1.26)
(1.06)
(2.62)
(1.70)
45.9
48.2
43.0
26.3
(1.22)
(1.07)
(2.71)
(1.54)
50.0
53.3
48.0
26.9
(1.22)
(1.09)
(2.59)
(1.54)
31.6
35.3
32.0
16.4
(1.05)
(0.98)
(2.42)
(1.22)
13.6
16.8
17.5
7.5
(0.77)
(0.74)
(1.97)
(0.82)
WanttoAvoidGasStations
Want to Avoid Gas Stations
byRechargingPHEVatHome
Veryimportant
Somewhatimportant
Notveryimportant
Notatallimportant
55.6
47.3
36.9
20.4
(0.90)
(1.45)
(3.48)
(3.12)
58.0
50.4
40.5
20.9
(0.87)
(1.46)
(3.44)
(3.02)
48.3
36.7
20.5
10.2
(0.86)
(1.37)
(2.87)
(2.18)
52.6
40.5
23.5
8.0
(0.86)
(1.40)
(2.94)
(1.90)
34.1
25.4
14.2
5.0
(0.76)
(1.17)
(2.20)
(1.33)
15.9
11.8
5.4
2.9
(0.57)
(0.85)
(1.29)
(1.01)
MinimumAllElectricRange
forWorkandDailyErrands
Lessthan20miles
2039miles
4059miles
6079miles
80milesormore
43.9
58.2
57.3
57.6
42.7
(2.34)
(1.42)
(1.42)
(1.86)
(1.62)
43.4
60.9
61.0
60.2
45.6
(2.30)
(1.38)
(1.34)
(1.82)
(1.59)
37.2
49.9
50.7
47.9
30.5
(2.22)
(1.40)
(1.35)
(1.80)
(1.42)
37.7
52.7
54.8
55.5
35.1
(2.30)
(1.40)
(1.35)
(1.76)
(1.46)
24.4
34.6
37.0
33.9
21.2
(1.82)
(1.26)
(1.27)
(1.58)
(1.13)
11.8
16.2
18.0
14.6
9.0
(1.21)
(0.96)
(1.00)
(1.12)
(0.83)
(1.24)
(2.58)
(2.54)
(1.20)
(2.61)
(1.20)
(2.61)
(2.45)
(1.19)
(2.50)
Page54
(1.19)
(2.42)
(2.32)
(1.14)
(2.50)
(1.19)
(2.42)
(2.32)
(1.17)
(2.58)
(1.03)
(2.08)
(1.81)
(1.01)
(2.13)
(0.79)
(1.56)
(1.19)
(0.70)
(1.57)
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles______________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table2d
HybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilitiesbyEnvironmentalPreferences
NoCost
DataGiven
HEV
Fuelcost:25%
Vehcost:+$1,500
NoCost
DataGiven
PHEV
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
AllHouseholds
50.7 (0.75)
53.3 (0.73)
42.0 (0.25)
45.8 (0.72)
29.5 (0.61)
13.6 (0.44)
MonthlyTripstoGasStation
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
41.4
49.7
52.1
52.9
53.1
42.7
51.6
55.4
55.5
56.1
34.2
42.2
44.0
43.0
43.3
36.7
44.8
45.8
47.7
48.7
23.8
27.9
31.9
29.4
32.3
9.8
12.0
15.9
13.8
15.3
MainAdvantageofHybrid
Reducefuelmoney
Reduceemissions
Reducedependenceoil
49.8 (1.34)
58.4 (1.96)
50.1 (1.02)
(2.33)
(1.60)
(1.95)
(1.42)
(1.47)
(2.32)
(1.61)
(1.87)
(1.36)
(1.44)
(2.20)
(1.55)
(1.89)
(1.33)
(1.38)
(2.27)
(1.58)
(1.89)
(1.34)
(1.41)
(1.79)
(1.32)
(1.63)
(1.15)
(1.23)
(1.11)
(0.92)
(1.24)
(0.87)
(0.92)
52.6 (1.32)
60.1 (1.91)
52.6 (1.00)
41.8 (1.29)
46.8 (1.91)
41.5 (0.95)
46.7 (1.32)
50.4 (1.91)
44.6 (0.97)
29.9 (1.10)
34.9 (1.71)
28.2 (0.81)
12.6 (0.74)
18.4 (1.39)
13.1 (0.60)
ShowCommitmentbyBuying
EnvironmentalFriendlyProducts
Veryimportant
59.8
Somewhatimportant
45.2
Notveryimportant
44.8
Notatallimportant
21.7
(1.04)
(1.18)
(2.43)
(2.72)
61.7
49.1
45.2
23.6
(1.01)
(1.16)
(2.49)
(2.72)
49.7
38.0
35.3
17.0
(1.01)
(1.12)
(2.22)
(2.56)
52.9
43.0
39.4
16.9
(1.02)
(1.15)
(2.38)
(2.44)
34.4
27.3
25.6
10.9
(0.91)
(0.97)
(1.86)
(1.72)
16.2
12.6
10.9
4.3
(0.70)
(0.67)
(1.29)
(1.01)
BuyCompactFluorescentBulbs
B C
t Fl
t B lb
Allthetime
56.6
Mostofthetime
54.9
Someofthetime
50.4
Never
42.8
(1.60)
(1.50)
(1.35)
(1.56)
57.8
57.0
53.6
46.4
(1.55)
(1.49)
(1.32)
(1.53)
45.8
47.2
42.3
34.0
(1.57)
(1.43)
(1.26)
(1.43)
50.1
50.3
46.3
37.6
(1.54)
(1.46)
(1.31)
(1.48)
33.6
33.4
29.2
22.5
(1.40)
(1.30)
(1.07)
(1.15)
16.2
16.6
13.6
8.6
(1.08)
(0.99)
(0.78)
(0.71)
Wanttobe1sttoOwn
NewTechnology
Stronglyagree
Agree
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
(3.03)
(1.25)
(1.12)
(2.05)
54.2
57.1
51.9
47.8
(2.98)
(1.22)
(1.10)
(2.05)
46.8
46.4
40.0
34.6
(2.92)
(1.24)
(1.03)
(1.87)
48.0
49.9
44.4
37.7
(3.01)
(1.23)
(1.07)
(1.90)
35.4
33.0
27.8
22.3
(2.68)
(1.07)
(0.89)
(1.48)
17.0
16.6
12.3
8.1
(2.03)
(0.83)
(0.62)
(0.91)
55.0
54.5
49.2
44.1
Page55
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles __________________________________________________________________________________________ University of Michigan
Table3
ChangeinPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyEnergyCosts
$2,500to$5,000
Probability
%Change
PHEVwithFuelCost75%
Costincreasesfrom:
$5,000to$10,000
Probability
%Change
$2,500to$10,000
Probability
%Change
AllHouseholds
16.3 (0.41)
35.6%
15.8 (0.39)
53.6%
32.0 (0.60)
69.9%
GasPriceatTimeofSurvey
(EIAData)
$0.01$2.699
$2.70$3.619
$3.62$3.839
$3.84$4.139
$4.14ormore
16.7
16.9
16.0
16.4
15.4
(0.96)
(0.95)
(0.84)
(0.89)
(0.91)
37.4%
36.4%
33.8%
35.8%
34.6%
14.7
15.6
16.7
16.3
15.7
(0.91)
(0.81)
(0.89)
(0.83)
(0.91)
52.5%
52.9%
53.2%
55.4%
54.3%
31.5
32.4
32.7
32.7
31.4
(1.40)
(1.38)
(1.26)
(1.28)
(1.38)
70.6%
69.8%
69.1%
71.4%
70.6%
RetailPriceofElectricity
(EIAData)
19.9centskWh
1010.9centskWh
1111.9centskWh
1214.9centskWh
15ormorecentskWh
17.1
15.7
16.9
15.6
16.5
(0.90)
(0.82)
(0.97)
(0.87)
(1.05)
37.8%
35.4%
35.7%
33.4%
36.3%
15.6
15.9
17.1
14.6
16.2
(0.86)
(0.81)
(0.96)
(0.78)
(0.98)
55.7%
55.4%
55.9%
47.1%
55.7%
32.9
31.6
34.0
30.3
32.7
(1.35)
(1.23)
(1.41)
(1.24)
(1.51)
72.8%
71.3%
71.9%
64.9%
72.0%
ExpectationofGasPrice:FiveYears
$1$3.299
15.2
$3.30$3.919
16.2
$3.92$4.499
15.7
$4.50$5.339
18.6
$5 34
$5.34ormore
16 4
16.4
(0.95)
(0.91)
(0.89)
(0.92)
(0 92)
(0.92)
36.3%
35.1%
36.8%
37.1%
33.1%
33 1%
14.0
15.1
15.0
17.1
17.9
17 9
(0.89)
(0.86)
(0.82)
(0.84)
(0 95)
(0.95)
52.4%
50.3%
55.8%
54.1%
54.1%
54 1%
29.2
31.8
30.8
35.7
34.4
34 4
(1.38)
(1.31)
(1.32)
(1.35)
(1 34)
(1.34)
69.7%
68.8%
72.1%
71.3%
69.5%
69 5%
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$131
$130$190
$191$260
$261ormore
14.2
17.0
17.4
16.7
16.8
(0.83)
(0.97)
(0.94)
(0.86)
(0.96)
37.8%
36.8%
36.7%
32.7%
33.7%
14.4
15.2
14.7
18.4
17.0
(0.85)
(0.88)
(0.77)
(0.97)
(0.88)
61.5%
51.9%
49.2%
53.2%
51.4%
28.6
32.2
32.5
35.1
33.7
(1.30)
(1.36)
(1.29)
(1.38)
(1.35)
76.1%
69.7%
68.6%
68.7%
67.7%
VehicleFuelEfficiency
(EPAData)
115.9MPG
1617.9MPG
1820.9MPG
2123.9MPG
24MPGormore
16.9
15.0
16.2
16.8
18.6
(0.99)
(0.91)
(0.85)
(0.95)
(1.08)
37.4%
33.6%
34.7%
37.0%
36.5%
16.1
15.1
17.0
16.1
17.9
(0.87)
(0.91)
(0.91)
(0.97)
(0.97)
56.7%
50.3%
56.1%
55.7%
54.9%
33.0
30.2
33.3
33.0
36.5
(1.38)
(1.39)
(1.30)
(1.45)
(1.52)
73.0%
67.6%
71.3%
72.7%
71.7%
Page56
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles _______________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table3a
ChangeinPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyVehicleCharacteristics
$2,500to$5,000
Probability
%Change
PHEVwithFuelCost75%
Costincreasesfrom:
$5,000to$10,000
Probability
%Change
$2,500to$10,000
Probability
%Change
AllHouseholds
16.3 (0.41)
35.6%
15.8 (0.39)
53.6%
32.0 (0.60)
69.9%
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
13.0
17.1
16.3
18.5
16.7
(0.91)
(0.88)
(0.89)
(0.96)
(0.93)
34.1%
37.4%
36.1%
36.2%
34.2%
13.9
15.9
15.6
16.8
16.8
(0.92)
(0.85)
(0.85)
(0.85)
(0.88)
55.4%
55.6%
54.0%
51.5%
52.0%
27.1
32.9
31.9
35.5
33.5
(1.37)
(1.28)
(1.33)
(1.35)
(1.34)
71.1%
72.0%
70.7%
69.5%
68.5%
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
13.7
16.7
17.2
17.2
16.4
(0.91)
(0.92)
(0.93)
(0.95)
(0.84)
36.0%
36.4%
34.6%
35.4%
35.5%
13.6
16.0
16.0
16.4
16.8
(0.92)
(0.89)
(0.83)
(0.85)
(0.85)
55.5%
54.8%
49.4%
52.1%
56.4%
27.4
32.7
33.4
33.6
33.3
(1.44)
(1.35)
(1.30)
(1.33)
(1.26)
71.9%
71.2%
67.2%
69.1%
72.1%
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
15.8
15.2
18.9
17.4
(0.55)
(1.02)
(1.59)
(0.84)
35.5%
37.2%
36.1%
34.5%
15.2
14.5
18.8
17.2
(0.53)
(1.01)
(1.42)
(0.81)
53.0%
56.4%
56.1%
52.1%
31.1
29.8
37.7
34.7
(0.82)
(1.53)
(2.11)
(1.23)
69.9%
72.9%
71.9%
68.7%
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
16.9 (0.52)
15.7 (0.68)
35.1%
36.7%
16.8 (0.50)
14.5 (0.62)
53.8%
53.5%
33.7 (0.76)
30.3 (0.98)
70.1%
70.8%
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
17.0
16.5
17.7
14.6
(0.86)
(0.80)
(0.81)
(0.80)
33.7%
34.5%
37.0%
37.6%
18.5
15.8
16.8
13.0
(0.91)
(0.72)
(0.77)
(0.73)
55.2%
50.5%
55.6%
53.7%
35.4
32.4
34.6
27.7
(1.31)
(1.14)
(1.16)
(1.19)
70.1%
67.8%
72.2%
71.4%
One
Two
Threeormore
14.2 (0.76)
17.8 (0.66)
16.1 (0.69)
37.3%
36.6%
32.9%
13.3 (0.71)
16.7 (0.63)
16.9 (0.68)
55.9%
54.0%
51.7%
27.8 (1.11)
34.5 (0.97)
33.0 (1.03)
73.0%
70.8%
67.5%
Page57
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles__________________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table3b
ChangeinPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangesbyDemographicSubgroup
$2,500to$5,000
Probability
%Change
PHEVwithFuelCost75%
Costincreasesfrom:
$5,000to$10,000
Probability
%Change
$2,500to$10,000
Probability
%Change
AllHouseholds
16.3 (0.41)
35.6%
15.8 (0.39)
53.6%
32.0 (0.60)
69.9%
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65orolder
15.3
16.0
19.5
17.4
13.4
(1.01)
(0.90)
(0.87)
(0.90)
(0.89)
30.5%
31.1%
36.5%
37.1%
45.7%
18.4
19.2
18.2
14.8
9.4
(1.08)
(1.00)
(0.77)
(0.80)
(0.72)
52.9%
54.4%
53.8%
49.8%
59.9%
33.7
35.2
37.9
32.3
22.9
(1.57)
(1.45)
(1.21)
(1.26)
(1.19)
67.1%
68.5%
71.0%
68.9%
78.2%
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
11.5
15.8
17.5
18.4
17.4
(1.21)
(1.12)
(0.85)
(0.81)
(0.81)
39.8%
38.8%
36.2%
36.1%
31.0%
8.7
12.4
18.1
18.7
19.4
(0.96)
(0.90)
(0.88)
(0.83)
(0.83)
50.6%
49.8%
58.8%
57.2%
49.7%
20.3
28.3
35.5
37.1
36.8
(1.65)
(1.52)
(1.24)
(1.22)
(1.25)
70.2%
69.5%
73.5%
72.7%
65.5%
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
14.5
15.8
17.8
17.7
(0.80)
(0.91)
(0.72)
(0.84)
39.6%
35.6%
34.6%
32.2%
12.0
15.2
18.2
19.6
(0.67)
(0.85)
(0.73)
(0.88)
54.3%
53.1%
54.3%
52.3%
26.5
31.1
36.2
37.3
(1.11)
(1.32)
(1.10)
(1.23)
72.4%
70.0%
70.4%
67.8%
Gender
Male
Female
17.9 (0.63)
14.9 (0.53)
37.6%
33.7%
16.1 (0.56)
15.5 (0.53)
54.0%
53.1%
34.1 (0.91)
30.5 (0.79)
71.6%
69.0%
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
16.9 (0.44)
13.2 (1.04)
36.1%
32.6%
16.1 (0.42)
14.5 (1.04)
53.8%
53.3%
33.0 (0.64)
27.8 (1.59)
70.5%
68.6%
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
15.2
15.8
18.2
16.3
(0.90)
(0.78)
(0.97)
(0.69)
31.4%
35.6%
37.8%
37.0%
16.5
15.8
16.9
14.8
(0.91)
(0.76)
(0.86)
(0.65)
50.0%
55.4%
56.3%
53.2%
32.0
31.7
35.0
31.1
(1.33)
(1.15)
(1.39)
(1.02)
66.1%
71.4%
72.8%
70.7%
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Incountryofcitycntr
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycntr
NotinMSA
17.2
14.8
17.9
14.6
15.2
(0.82)
(0.80)
(0.84)
(1.83)
(0.87)
36.2%
34.0%
36.8%
32.2%
35.8%
15.6
15.4
16.9
14.0
15.4
(0.70)
(0.86)
(0.78)
(1.73)
(0.87)
51.1%
53.7%
54.9%
45.5%
56.4%
32.9
30.8
34.9
28.6
30.6
(1.12)
(1.25)
(1.23)
(2.77)
(1.30)
69.3%
70.8%
71.8%
63.0%
72.0%
Page58
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles _________________________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table3c
ChangeinPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyChargingCharacteristics
$2,500to$5,000
Probability
%Change
PHEVwithFuelCost75%
Costincreasesfrom:
$5,000to$10,000
Probability
%Change
$2,500to$10,000
Probability
%Change
AllHouseholds
16.3 (0.41)
35.6%
15.8 (0.39)
53.6%
32.0 (0.60)
69.9%
Attachedgarage
Unattachedgarage
Carport
Driveway
Street/lot/structure
17.2
15.6
14.0
16.3
16.9
(0.66)
(1.44)
(1.36)
(0.65)
(1.66)
34.9%
35.9%
38.4%
35.5%
37.0%
16.8
14.3
13.5
16.1
14.9
(0.65)
(1.29)
(1.31)
(0.64)
(1.32)
52.5%
51.3%
59.7%
54.2%
51.7%
34.1
29.8
27.5
32.5
32.0
(0.98)
(1.98)
(2.04)
(0.96)
(2.25)
69.2%
68.5%
75.3%
70.8%
70.0%
HaveAvailableOutlet
toRechargePHEV
Yes
No
17.1 (0.46)
13.9 (0.90)
34.8%
40.2%
17.3 (0.46)
11.0 (0.69)
53.9%
53.1%
34.5 (0.68)
24.9 (1.25)
70.1%
72.0%
Rechargeafter9PMif
OfferedDiscount
Always
Mostofthetime
Someofthetime
Noimpactwhencharge
18.5
18.0
15.9
10.5
(0.74)
(0.61)
(1.58)
(0.92)
37.0%
33.8%
33.1%
39.0%
17.8
18.5
14.5
9.0
(0.69)
(0.62)
(1.33)
(0.79)
56.3%
52.4%
45.3%
54.9%
36.3
36.6
30.4
19.5
(1.05)
(0.92)
(2.13)
(1.27)
72.6%
68.7%
63.3%
72.5%
WanttoAvoidGasStations
byRechargingPHEVatHome
Veryimportant
Somewhat important
Somewhatimportant
Notveryimportant
Notatallimportant
18.5
15 0
15.0
9.2
2.8
(0.52)
(0.79)
(0
79)
(1.59)
(1.12)
35.2%
37.0%
37
0%
39.3%
35.0%
18.2
13.6
13
6
8.7
2.3
(0.50)
(0.71)
(0
71)
(1.47)
(0.75)
53.4%
53.5%
53
5%
61.3%
46.0%
36.7
28.8
28
8
18.1
5.0
(0.73)
(1.15)
(1
15)
(2.45)
(1.54)
69.8%
71.1%
71
1%
77.0%
62.5%
forWorkandDailyErrands
Lessthan20miles
2039miles
4059miles
6079miles
80milesormore
13.3
18.1
17.8
21.6
14.0
(1.13)
(0.89)
(0.77)
(1.17)
(0.88)
35.3%
34.3%
32.5%
38.9%
39.9%
12.6
18.2
18.9
19.4
12.1
(1.11)
(0.82)
(0.79)
(1.09)
(0.78)
51.6%
52.6%
51.1%
57.2%
57.1%
25.9
36.5
36.8
40.9
26.2
(1.76)
(1.23)
(1.11)
(1.59)
(1.28)
68.7%
69.3%
67.2%
73.7%
74.6%
Page59
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ________________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table3d
ChangeinPHEVPurchaseProbabilitiesasPremiumsChangebyEnvironmentalAttitudes
$2,500to$5,000
Probability
%Change
PHEVwithFuelCost75%
Costincreasesfrom:
$5,000to$10,000
Probability
%Change
$2,500to$10,000
Probability
%Change
AllHouseholds
16.3 (0.41)
35.6%
15.8 (0.39)
53.6%
32.0 (0.60)
69.9%
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
12.9
17.0
13.9
18.2
16.6
(1.10)
(0.92)
(0.94)
(0.81)
(0.82)
35.1%
37.9%
30.3%
38.2%
34.1%
14.0
15.9
15.8
15.6
16.9
(1.22)
(0.88)
(0.97)
(0.70)
(0.80)
58.8%
57.0%
49.5%
53.1%
52.3%
26.9
32.9
29.7
34.0
33.5
(1.85)
(1.33)
(1.47)
(1.13)
(1.19)
73.3%
73.4%
64.8%
71.3%
68.8%
MainAdvantageofHybrid
Reducemoneyspentonfuel
Reduceemissions
Reducedependenceonforeignoil
16.8 (0.73)
15.7 (1.03)
16.4 (0.57)
36.0%
31.2%
36.8%
17.2 (0.74)
16.3 (1.00)
15.1 (0.52)
57.5%
46.7%
53.5%
34.0 (1.11)
32.1 (1.54)
31.5 (0.81)
72.8%
63.7%
70.6%
ShowCommitmentbyBuying
EnvironmentalFriendlyProducts
Veryimportant
Somewhatimportant
Notveryimportant
Notatallimportant
18.6
15.7
13.8
6.2
(0.64)
(0.62)
(1.14)
(1.19)
35.2%
36.5%
35.0%
36.7%
18.1
14.7
14.7
6.5
(0.59)
(0.61)
(1.11)
(1.16)
52.6%
53.8%
57.4%
59.6%
36.8
30.5
28.5
12.7
(0.89)
(0.93)
(1.86)
(2.01)
69.6%
70.9%
72.3%
75.1%
BuyCompactFluorescentBulbs
All the time
Allthetime
Mostofthetime
Someofthetime
Never
16.5
16.5
16.9
17.1
15.1
(0.88)
(0.85)
(0.76)
(0.82)
32.9%
32.9%
33.6%
36.9%
40.2%
17.2
17.2
16.9
15.6
13.9
(0.92)
(0.80)
(0.66)
(0.79)
51.2%
51.2%
50.6%
53.4%
61.8%
33.8
33.8
33.8
32.7
29.0
(1.30)
(1.21)
(1.08)
(1.25)
67.5%
67.5%
67.2%
70.6%
77.1%
Wanttobe1sttoOwn
NewTechnology
Stronglyagree
Agree
Disagree
Stronglydisagree
12.6
16.9
16.6
15.4
(1.38)
(0.74)
(0.60)
(1.07)
26.3%
33.9%
37.4%
40.8%
18.3
16.4
15.3
14.3
(1.83)
(0.65)
(0.58)
(1.03)
51.7%
49.7%
55.0%
64.1%
30.9
33.4
32.1
29.7
(2.47)
(1.03)
(0.89)
(1.62)
64.4%
66.9%
72.3%
78.8%
Page60
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ____________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table4
MedianPaybackPeriodsinYearsforHybridVehicles
BasedonCurrentMonthlyGasolineExpenditures
HEV
PHEV
Fuel:25%
Fuel75%andVehicleCostof:
Veh:+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.1
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
3.9
4.1
4.2
4.7
7.6
8.5
9.3
12.9
At5YearGasPriceExpectations
withDiscountRateof:
0%
3.0
3%
3.1
5%
3.2
10%
3.4
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
3.3
3.4
3.6
3.9
6.4
7.1
7.7
9.7
AtCurrentGasPrices
withDiscountRateof:
0%
3%
5%
10%
Page61
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ______________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table4a
MedianYearsPayBackPeriodsinYearsforHybridVehiclesbyDemographicSubgroup
FiveYearGasPriceExpectations;3%DiscountRate
HEV
PHEV
Fuel:25%
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Incountyofcitycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Veh:+$1,500
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
3.08
1.74
3.43
7.10
2.82
2.51
2.53
3.43
5.61
1.58
1.43
1.44
1.93
3.07
3.14
2.77
2.81
3.85
6.29
6.46
5.62
5.75
8.06
13.79
4.69
3.59
3.08
2.71
2.63
2.62
1.99
1.74
1.50
1.46
5.32
3.99
3.46
2.99
2.90
11.27
8.31
7.12
6.14
6.00
3.34
3.42
2.89
2.92
1.89
1.91
1.63
1.65
3.73
3.76
3.20
3.26
7.77
7.93
6.59
6.72
2.86
3.37
1.62
1.88
3.20
3.72
6.60
7.77
3.01
3.60
1.70
2.02
3.35
4.02
6.93
8.45
3.38
3.03
2.98
2.64
3.03
1.90
1.71
1.68
1.48
1.72
3.75
3.38
3.31
2.95
3.38
7.86
7.07
6.89
5.98
7.04
3.49
3.15
2.96
2.96
1.96
1.78
1.68
1.66
3.89
3.51
3.29
3.30
8.21
7.29
6.85
6.82
Page62
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ______________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table4b
MedianPayBackPeriodsinYearsforHybridVehiclesbyVehicleCharacteristics
HEV
PHEV
+$5,000
+$10,000
Fuel:25%
Veh:+$1,500
+$2,500
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
3.75
2.44
2.61
2.64
2.10
1.38
1.48
1.48
4.19
2.68
2.89
2.93
8.78
5.46
5.90
6.01
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
3.07
3.08
1.73
1.74
3.42
3.43
7.08
7.13
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
2.76
2.86
3.10
3.92
1.54
1.62
1.74
2.18
3.03
3.18
3.43
4.37
6.19
6.55
7.17
9.20
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
6.16
3.93
3.21
2.43
1.75
3.36
2.20
1.80
1.40
1.02
6.94
4.38
3.62
2.70
1.94
15.00
9.26
7.42
5.50
3.88
PercentHighwayMiles
g
y
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
4.64
3.70
2.92
2.91
2.37
2.57
2.09
1.65
1.64
1.36
5.15
4.14
3.21
3.24
2.65
11.11
8.74
6.70
6.66
5.35
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
8.94
4.41
2.99
2.15
1.18
4.75
2.42
1.67
1.24
0.70
10.13
4.92
3.32
2.38
1.31
15.00
10.47
6.89
4.80
2.51
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
12.02
5.31
3.28
2.57
1.49
6.18
2.90
1.82
1.46
0.88
13.60
5.91
3.61
2.84
1.66
15.00
12.94
7.49
5.82
3.27
One
Two
Threeormore
3.97
2.95
2.75
2.20
1.66
1.54
4.41
3.29
3.03
9.30
6.80
6.20
Page63
Table5
RegressionModelsofHybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilities
(StandardErrorsinParentheses)
HEV
YearstoBreakEven
NoCost
Fuel:25%
NoCost
DataGiven
Veh:+$1,500
DataGiven
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
N/A
0.010***
N/A
0.012***
0.007***
0.004**
(0.003)
(0.002)
(0.001)
(FiveYearGasPrice;3%DiscountRate)
CurrentGasPrice
CurrentElectricPrice
MPGofVehicle
DailyMilesDriven
PercentHighwayMiles
PHEV
(0.002)
0.008
0.011
0.007
0.009
0.000
0.002
(0.011)
(0.011)
(0.010)
(0.010)
(0.009)
(0.007)
0.001
0.0004
0.003
0.005
0.001
0.003
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
0.012***
0.013***
0.010***
0.011***
0.006**
0.003*
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.002)
(0.001)
0.000
0.0001
0.001
0.000004
0.0001
0.0002
(0.000)
(0.0004)
(0.000)
0.0004
0.0003
0.0002
0.001***
0.001***
0.001*
0.001***
0.001*
0.0004*
(0.000)
(0.0003)
(0.000)
(0.0003)
(0.0003)
(0.0002)
Van
0.105***
0.073**
0.080**
0.105***
0.048
0.017
(Omitted=Car)
(0.029)
(0.028)
(0.029)
(0.029)
(0.026)
(0.019)
Pickup
0.058*
0.054
0.040
0.036
0.019
0.005
(Omitted=Car)
(0.029)
(0.028)
(0.029)
(0.028)
(0.025)
(0.019)
SUV
0.076**
0.067**
0.079***
0.070***
0.029
0.015
(Omitted=Car)
(0 023)
(0.023)
(0.022)
(0 022)
(0.022)
(0 022)
(0.021)
(0 021)
(0.019)
(0 019)
(0.016)
(0 016)
Used
0.007
0.011
0.005
0.009
0.004
0.013
(Omitted=New)
(0.018)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.016)
(0.015)
(0.011)
AgeofVehicleinYears
0.003
0.004
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.001
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.003)
(0.002)
(0.002)
NumberofVehicles
0.016
0.011
0.002
0.004
0.009
0.016*
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.009)
(0.008)
(0.006)
Ageofrespondentinyears
0.002**
0.001
0.000
0.001
0.002**
0.001*
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.001)
(0.001)
0.044
0.053*
0.081**
0.065**
0.046*
0.021
(0.027)
(0.026)
(0.026)
(0.025)
(0.022)
(0.018)
0.040***
0.047***
0.020
0.032**
0.023*
0.000
(0.012)
(0.012)
(0.011)
(0.012)
(0.010)
(0.009)
0.020***
0.017***
0.013**
0.014***
0.013***
0.007
Ifageofrespondent>60
HouseholdIncome(ln)
EducationinYears
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.003)
(0.003)
Female
0.003
0.004
0.038*
0.038*
0.004
0.001
(Omitted=Male)
(0.017)
(0.016)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.015)
(0.011)
West
0.038
0.044*
0.026
0.048*
0.044*
0.034*
(Omitted=NorthCentral)
(0.023)
(0.022)
(0.022)
(0.022)
(0.020)
(0.015)
Page64
Table5(continued)
RegressionModelsofHybridVehiclePurchaseProbabilities
(StandardErrorsinParentheses)
HEV
PHEV
NoCost
Fuel:25%
NoCost
DataGiven
Veh:+$1,500
DataGiven
+$2,500
+$5,000
+$10,000
Northeast
0.003
0.025
0.012
0.052
0.004
0.022
(0.032)
(0.030)
(0.030)
(0.029)
(0.026)
(0.021)
South
0.013
0.000
0.002
0.013
0.004
0.000
(0.019)
(0.018)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.017)
(0.012)
Urban
0.022
0.034
0.007
0.009
0.001
0.005
(Omitted=Surburban)
(0.019)
(0.018)
(0.018)
(0.018)
(0.016)
(0.012)
Rural
0.006
0.045*
0.002
0.014
0.013
0.001
(Omitted=Surburban)
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.017)
(0.013)
Haveelectricaloutlet
0.032
0.054**
0.072***
0.077***
0.071***
0.026*
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.016)
(0.012)
0.056**
0.062***
0.085***
0.094***
0.051**
0.012
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.018)
(0.016)
(0.012)
IgnoreOffPeakPricing
AvoidGasStations
MinAER<20miles
MinAER>60miles
0.058***
0.046**
0.105***
0.118***
0.079***
0.041***
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.014)
(0.010)
0.085***
0.113***
0.096***
0.086***
0.046*
0.019
(0.024)
(0.024)
(0.024)
(0.024)
(0.020)
(0.015)
0.063***
0.071***
0.103***
0.085***
0.084***
0.060***
(0.018)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.015)
(0.011)
ReduceEmissions
0.056*
0.055*
0.030
0.022
0.045*
0.067***
(O itt d R d
(Omitted=Reducecost)
t)
(0.025)
(0.024)
(0.025)
(0.024)
(0.023)
(0.019)
ReduceDependence
0.015
0.012
0.007
0.006
0.002
0.013
(Omitted=Reducecost)
(0.018)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.017)
(0.015)
(0.011)
BuyGreenimportant
0.130***
0.108***
0.100***
0.084***
0.058***
0.029**
(Omitted=Neutral)
(0.017)
(0.016)
(0.016)
(0.016)
(0.014)
(0.010)
BuyGreennotimportant
0.164***
0.160***
0.106***
0.140***
0.090***
0.049***
(Omitted=Neutral)
(0.034)
(0.033)
(0.032)
(0.030)
(0.022)
(0.014)
Alwaysbuygreenbulbs
0.034
0.033
0.011
0.020
0.032
0.019
(Omitted=Sometimes)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.018)
(0.017)
(0.014)
Neverbuygreenbulbs
0.048*
0.029
0.050**
0.040*
0.030
0.033*
(Omitted=Sometimes)
(0.020)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.019)
(0.016)
(0.011)
EarlyAdopter
0.022
0.017
0.012
0.023
0.026
0.023
(Omitted=Middle)
(0.034)
(0.034)
(0.034)
(0.033)
(0.030)
(0.024)
LateAdopter
0.043
0.045
0.064**
0.062**
0.065***
0.056***
(Omitted=Middle)
(0.023)
(0.023)
(0.022)
(0.021)
(0.017)
(0.012)
Intercept
0.452
0.4616**
0.160
0.217
0.196
0.039
(0.147)
(0.150)
(0.145)
(0.148)
(0.125)
(0.106)
0.215
0.220
0.210
0.258
0.210
0.123
RSQDAdjusted
Note:Robuststandarderrorswerecalculatedusingaconsistentestimateofthecovariancematrixthatallowedforheteroscedasticity.
Page65
Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ___________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan
Table6
PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
25
25
16
Zero
21
1%33%
13
Total
100%
Cases
2329
13
13
13
21
40
14
13
16
15
13
27
28
25
22
21
29
30
30
24
14
17
16
16
18
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
399
519
499
597
40
29
16
12
11
12
12
14
18
13
21
18
29
30
24
14
24
26
27
34
13
17
15
13
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
291
390
507
490
504
32
21
14
9
13
15
15
14
26
23
26
22
16
26
30
34
13
15
15
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
694
471
676
480
20
21
15
13
26
24
26
25
13
17
100%
100%
1024
1305
20
24
14
12
25
23
26
23
15
18
100%
100%
1974
354
19
24
18
13
23
12
17
11
20
16
23
21
28
27
27
28
25
25
30
21
18
13
18
10
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
650
525
569
88
497
21
19
19
22
13
14
13
16
20
29
25
24
27
26
28
23
19
12
15
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
489
613
433
794
The question was: On a scale of zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely not buy and
one hundred means you definitely would buy, what are the chances that you might buy a hybrid vehicle
sometime in the future?
Page66
Table6(continued)
PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
Total
Cases
21
28
15
18
15
15
13
12
24
25
27
25
24
21
27
30
16
11
18
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
1283
329
193
505
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
19
23
14
14
24
25
27
23
16
15
100%
100%
1456
850
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
17
16
18
30
15
16
11
15
24
27
27
21
26
27
27
20
18
14
17
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
504
598
608
602
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
29
21
19
15
17
15
12
16
11
17
19
24
24
30
26
23
26
27
27
24
14
17
14
17
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
433
513
491
425
458
PercentHighwayMiles
4% or less
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
31
21
14
17
20
13
14
14
15
15
19
24
26
26
28
21
25
31
25
24
16
16
15
17
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
411
475
440
464
529
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
30
21
18
14
17
14
14
14
13
15
23
20
26
30
26
19
28
30
23
27
14
17
12
20
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
566
452
452
411
416
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
34
22
21
18
16
13
14
12
13
17
19
25
22
28
25
20
25
30
23
27
14
14
15
18
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
268
513
345
636
545
One
Two
Threeormore
27
19
17
13
13
16
21
24
28
23
27
26
16
17
13
100%
100%
100%
715
927
685
Page67
Table7
PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:25%FuelSavingsand$1,500Premium
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
25
29
15
Zero
18
1%33%
13
Total
100%
Cases
2327
13
11
10
18
37
13
13
12
12
14
28
26
26
24
22
32
34
36
27
16
14
16
16
19
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
397
520
500
595
39
24
13
11
10
12
11
15
13
12
22
21
31
30
20
16
28
27
32
40
11
16
14
14
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
285
394
505
491
504
29
18
13
9
12
14
13
11
26
26
25
23
20
27
35
38
13
15
14
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
694
469
676
481
18
18
13
13
25
25
32
27
12
17
100%
100%
1026
1301
17
23
13
12
25
24
30
25
15
16
100%
100%
1971
355
16
20
18
17
20
12
15
10
18
14
24
24
25
29
27
31
27
31
30
26
17
14
16
6
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
651
526
567
88
495
19
17
17
19
11
14
11
14
21
27
25
26
29
30
31
27
20
12
16
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
489
611
433
794
The question was: If a hybrid vehicle reduced total fuel costs by twentyfive percent and the vehicle itself costs
one thousand five hundred dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances that you might buy a
hybrid vehicle, using the same scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would
definitely not buy and one hundred mean you definitely would buy sometime in the future?
Page68
Table7(continued)
PurchaseProbabilitiesforHEVs:25%FuelSavingsand$1,500Premium
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
18
23
16
16
13
15
10
11
25
25
25
26
29
27
33
29
15
10
16
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
1281
331
193
504
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
16
22
12
14
25
25
31
26
16
13
100%
100%
1454
850
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
14
15
16
26
12
14
13
13
27
27
25
23
30
29
30
26
17
15
16
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
506
600
607
597
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
27
18
20
10
15
14
10
14
15
12
23
28
23
26
27
23
28
29
32
31
13
16
14
17
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
432
511
491
426
458
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
29
16
15
15
17
13
13
14
11
13
21
25
24
27
28
24
28
33
31
28
13
18
14
16
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
408
476
441
462
530
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
28
19
15
13
13
15
12
13
10
14
21
23
26
29
26
22
32
32
31
32
14
14
14
17
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
567
453
448
412
418
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
32
21
17
15
13
14
13
12
12
14
20
23
23
28
27
19
28
34
28
32
15
15
14
17
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
268
515
344
633
545
One
Two
Threeormore
25
17
14
14
11
14
23
24
28
22
32
31
16
16
13
100%
100%
100%
714
925
686
Page69
Table8
PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
27
20
9
Zero
25
1%33%
19
Total
100%
Cases
2336
20
19
16
23
44
21
18
22
19
17
31
30
30
28
20
21
25
22
19
11
7
8
10
11
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
397
522
503
599
44
35
20
16
14
15
15
20
23
21
21
26
30
29
30
10
14
20
25
26
10
10
10
7
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
290
394
508
491
504
35
27
20
12
19
18
22
19
26
26
25
33
11
21
24
26
9
8
9
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
700
471
678
480
23
26
20
19
26
28
22
18
9
9
100%
100%
1029
1307
23
31
20
17
28
25
20
16
9
11
100%
100%
1979
358
23
27
24
23
28
19
21
18
21
19
27
25
27
31
28
21
19
20
22
18
10
8
11
3
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
653
527
568
88
500
24
26
22
26
17
19
20
21
27
27
29
27
18
19
23
18
14
9
6
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
490
615
433
798
The question was: On a scale of zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would definitely
not buy and one hundred means you definitely would buy, what are the chances that you might buy a
plugin hybrid vehicle sometime in the future?
Page70
Table8(continued)
PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:NoMileageorCostDataGiven
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
26
29
20
19
20
22
16
18
25
26
33
32
19
17
22
22
10
6
9
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
1288
331
193
505
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
22
29
20
19
27
27
22
16
9
9
100%
100%
1458
855
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
21
21
22
34
20
19
20
19
25
31
30
23
25
20
18
16
9
9
10
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
504
603
610
603
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
33
24
25
20
24
18
17
22
18
21
24
31
25
29
27
16
17
19
25
22
9
11
9
8
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
434
515
494
426
458
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
35
25
18
19
27
17
19
22
21
18
23
28
31
26
27
16
17
20
24
21
9
11
9
10
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
411
478
442
464
531
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
36
23
21
18
22
16
21
21
22
18
22
27
26
29
32
16
17
24
22
21
10
12
8
9
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
570
451
454
411
418
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
40
25
25
21
22
15
21
17
23
18
21
25
25
27
32
15
19
22
20
21
9
10
11
9
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
269
516
345
638
546
One
Two
Threeormore
32
23
21
19
19
20
24
27
31
15
22
20
10
9
8
100%
100%
100%
720
928
686
Page71
Table9
PurchaseProbabilitiesforPHEVs:75%FuelSavingsand$2,500Premium
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
26
25
10
Zero
23
1%33%
16
Total
100%
Cases
2334
17
17
13
22
43
16
14
18
16
18
29
28
28
27
20
29
31
29
24
13
9
10
12
11
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
396
523
502
598
44
32
17
14
12
19
14
19
16
14
18
21
29
31
28
11
24
25
30
35
8
9
10
9
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
390
395
507
490
503
34
24
17
12
16
18
16
15
26
23
25
31
16
26
31
31
8
9
11
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
699
470
678
480
21
25
15
17
27
25
28
23
9
10
100%
100%
1028
1306
21
32
17
16
26
23
26
19
10
10
100%
100%
1976
357
21
24
22
22
26
17
19
13
17
17
25
25
27
31
25
26
24
27
23
23
11
8
11
7
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
653
526
568
88
499
22
24
19
25
16
16
17
17
24
27
29
24
24
25
26
25
14
8
9
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
491
615
431
797
The question was: If a plugin hybrid reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent and cost two
thousand five hundred dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances you might buy the
plugin hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would
definitely not buy and one hundred means you definitely would buy?
Page72
Table9(continued)
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
25
26
19
18
18
19
11
13
23
28
27
32
24
20
34
27
10
7
9
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
1286
331
193
505
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
20
27
17
16
27
25
26
23
10
9
100%
100%
1457
853
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
17
20
20
31
16
16
16
18
25
28
28
23
32
26
25
20
10
10
11
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
504
601
611
601
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
33
22
24
15
20
19
16
17
17
12
18
29
25
28
29
21
22
22
30
31
9
11
12
10
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
435
514
495
424
457
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
33
24
17
18
23
17
16
17
19
14
22
24
30
26
27
18
24
27
26
29
10
12
9
11
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
435
477
442
465
529
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
36
20
20
16
18
15
20
19
16
13
20
26
26
26
33
19
22
28
30
28
10
12
7
12
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
571
452
450
412
418
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
38
25
24
18
18
15
17
16
19
15
19
23
23
28
30
18
24
27
26
28
10
11
10
9
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
270
515
345
636
546
One
Two
Threeormore
32
21
18
19
15
16
22
26
29
18
28
27
9
10
10
100%
100%
100%
719
928
685
Page73
Table10
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
26
11
3
Zero
33
1%33%
27
Total
100%
Cases
2330
24
23
23
33
58
27
27
34
25
22
32
34
26
29
14
15
11
14
9
3
2
5
3
4
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
399
522
501
593
56
43
30
23
18
24
24
28
32
27
13
22
28
31
34
3
8
10
12
17
4
3
4
2
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
286
395
507
491
504
45
35
26
20
25
26
29
29
21
26
29
32
6
10
13
14
3
3
3
5
100%
100%
100%
100%
698
470
675
480
31
34
27
27
28
25
11
10
3
4
100%
100%
1026
1304
32
39
27
25
27
23
11
8
3
5
100%
100%
1974
355
31
34
30
31
38
26
29
27
32
26
29
23
29
20
23
10
10
11
15
10
4
4
3
2
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
653
523
569
88
497
31
34
28
36
23
28
31
27
28
25
29
25
12
11
9
9
6
2
3
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
489
613
432
796
The question was: What if a plugin hybrid that reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent cost
five thousand dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances you might buy the plugin
hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would
Page74
Table10(continued)
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
34
39
29
27
27
26
27
27
26
24
27
30
10
10
14
12
3
1
3
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
1285
330
193
503
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
30
37
27
27
28
24
11
9
4
3
100%
100%
1456
850
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
25
31
31
42
28
27
29
25
32
26
26
22
11
12
11
8
4
4
3
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
505
602
608
598
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
41
33
35
28
28
27
30
25
27
27
19
26
26
30
30
11
7
10
12
12
2
4
4
3
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
432
513
493
425
458
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
42
34
26
29
33
27
26
31
27
25
20
26
28
29
29
8
9
12
12
11
3
5
3
3
2
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
410
478
439
464
530
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
47
32
31
25
26
21
29
28
28
31
21
26
26
31
29
8
9
13
12
11
3
4
2
4
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
568
451
450
412
418
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
46
38
31
29
27
20
25
27
32
28
23
24
27
26
30
8
9
11
11
12
3
4
4
2
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
270
514
346
633
545
One
Two
Threeormore
43
31
27
27
26
29
20
29
28
7
11
12
3
3
4
100%
100%
100%
714
928
686
Page75
Table11
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
34%66% 67%99%
100%
13
2
1
Zero
56
1%33%
28
Total
100%
Cases
2333
46
45
49
58
77
34
37
33
23
15
16
15
15
14
6
4
2
2
3
1
0
1
1
2
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
399
521
502
596
72
62
57
49
41
17
22
28
35
37
8
12
12
14
16
1
3
2
2
4
2
1
1
0
2
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
287
394
508
490
505
67
58
49
44
21
25
34
36
9
14
14
15
2
2
2
4
1
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
698
471
678
479
55
56
29
28
13
13
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
1027
1306
55
61
29
24
13
12
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
1976
356
50
61
54
49
62
33
24
31
31
22
14
10
12
18
13
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
1
0
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
653
525
589
88
498
52
55
56
58
28
30
30
27
15
12
11
12
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
491
612
434
796
The question was: What if a plugin hybrid that reduced total fuel costs by seventyfive percent cost
ten thousand dollars more than an ordinary vehicle, what are the chances you might buy the plugin
hybrid, using the scale ranging from zero to one hundred, where zero means that you would
Page76
Table11(continued)
34%66% 67%99%
100%
Zero
1%33%
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
58
61
49
49
26
26
32
33
12
11
15
15
3
1
3
2
1
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
1286
330
193
505
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
55
57
29
27
13
13
2
2
1
1
100%
100%
1457
852
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
51
54
54
63
32
28
31
23
14
13
13
11
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
506
601
609
600
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
62
56
58
52
51
25
31
26
29
29
11
9
12
15
16
1
2
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
435
513
493
426
457
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
65
57
45
53
58
24
28
36
26
28
9
12
15
17
10
1
1
3
3
3
1
2
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
409
478
441
464
531
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
68
55
55
48
48
21
30
27
32
33
9
10
14
16
16
1
3
4
2
2
1
2
0
2
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
569
453
451
412
417
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
68
60
52
54
50
19
27
29
31
30
12
9
15
11
17
1
2
3
3
2
0
2
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
270
515
345
635
546
One
Two
Threeormore
65
54
50
23
29
31
9
14
15
2
2
3
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
716
929
686
Page77
Table12
FiveYearGasPriceExpectationsAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
ExpectedPriceofGasoline
$3.92
$4.50
$5.34or
$4.499
$5.339
more
20
20
20
$0.01
$3.299
20
$3.30
$3.919
20
20
21
17
17
26
21
19
18
18
20
20
22
20
20
18
21
21
23
23
19
18
17
22
22
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
341
408
544
525
655
$4.316
$4.335
$4.466
$4.501
$4.173
24
20
20
16
20
18
19
22
21
21
18
21
19
20
21
17
21
21
20
20
23
19
18
23
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
376
416
516
492
506
$4.317
$4.411
$4.298
$4.455
$4.332
23
23
16
19
20
21
21
19
19
20
22
18
18
18
22
22
20
18
19
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
783
494
700
489
$4.300
$4.302
$4.040
$4.446
19
21
19
21
20
20
21
19
21
19
100% 1073 $
$ 4.421
4 421
100% 1404 $4.296
19
25
21
19
20
20
20
17
20
19
100% 2020 $4.374

100% 454 $4.269
20
19
21
21
19
20
20
22
22
20
19
21
18
18
20
21
19
18
18
21
20
21
21
21
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
724
536
594
95
528
$4.328
$4.376
$4.392
$4.089
$4.362
20
18
22
21
21
18
20
21
20
23
17
19
18
20
20
20
21
21
20
19
100%
100%
99%
100%
517
644
476
840
$4.367
$4.411
$4.310
$4.325
Page78
Total Cases Mean

100% 2477 $4.352
Table12a
FiveYearGasPriceExpectationsAmongDemographicSubgroups
ExpectedPriceofGasoline
$0.01
$3.30
$3.92
$4.50
$5.34or
$3.299
$3.919
$4.499
$5.339
more
Total Cases
Mean
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
21
15
20
21
19
20
20
24
18
21
23
21
20
24
17
19
22
20
20
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
20
19
22
19
20
19
19
22
19
21
100% 1444 $4.327

100% 848 $4.409
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
18
20
22
19
23
20
23
18
20
19
19
20
19
21
18
22
20
20
18
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
503
592
607
597
$4.394
$4.368
$4.247
$4.427
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
22
21
20
19
17
20
22
21
21
19
23
20
20
18
17
14
21
20
24
21
21
16
19
18
26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
425
513
490
422
456
$4.331
$4.273
$4.304
$4.343
$4.555
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
20
21
18
22
18
20
22
21
19
21
19
21
21
20
18
21
20
20
21
19
20
16
20
18
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
406
474
437
464
525
$4.362
$4.266
$4.385
$4.263
$4.482
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
23
21
21
18
14
22
22
20
22
18
21
18
19
19
20
18
20
20
21
21
16
19
20
20
27
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
561
452
448
410
415
$4.216
$4.302
$4.324
$4.389
$4.579
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
23
19
20
21
18
22
25
18
21
17
22
18
22
19
19
16
20
21
21
20
17
18
19
18
26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
265
511
340
636
544
$4.307
$4.281
$4.283
$4.292
$4.542
One
Two
Threeormore
30
22
21
15
22
20
22
19
20
12
18
19
21
19
20
100% 741
100% 938
100% 682
$4.274
$4.357
$4.448
Page79
1277
326
191
503
$4.376
$4.452
$4.395
$4.242
Table13
MonthlyExpendituresonGasolineAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
MonthlyExpenditureonGasoline
$1$80 $81$130 $131$190 $191$260 $261ormore Total Cases Median Mean
23
20
20
18
19
100% 2312 150.0 188.5
14
11
16
28
46
21
16
19
22
21
19
22
20
19
18
22
23
20
17
8
24
28
25
14
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
308
397
518
498
587
177.8
198.2
168.4
132.0
90.3
216.9
232.6
217.5
164.7
119.2
46
24
21
18
13
17
26
20
17
18
14
22
23
21
18
11
11
17
22
27
12
17
19
22
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
285
390
503
490
502
93.3
131.7
151.2
164.7
195.3
137.1
175.0
187.7
202.9
227.9
27
27
19
20
19
20
20
21
19
20
21
18
16
13
21
22
19
20
19
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
686
467
673
478
143.1
139.5
152.9
158.3
187.1
180.6
196.1
187.4
20
26
20
20
18
21
19
17
23
16
100% 1016
100% 1296
159.2
140 3
140.3
208.8
171 6
171.6
23
29
19
21
20
17
18
17
20
16
100% 1960
100% 352
150.5
130.9
192.0
171.3
25
23
20
18
26
22
19
22
15
16
20
22
20
21
17
17
18
17
29
18
16
18
21
17
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
646
523
561
87
495
139.8
152.1
150.8
173.8
156.6
176.6
181.8
199.4
202.3
196.0
28
26
21
20
22
19
20
18
19
20
19
21
16
16
20
19
15
19
20
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
482
609
433
788
132.5
142.9
157.9
160.3
168.7
185.9
189.0
201.6
The questions were: In a typical month, how often do you usually get gasoline for the [MAKE/MODEL]?
In the past month, on average how much did you spend on gasoline each time you got gas for the [MAKE/MODEL]?
Page80
Table13a
MonthlyExpendituresonGasolineAmongDemographicSubgroups
MonthlyExpenditureonGasoline
$1$80 $81$130 $131$190 $191$260 $261ormore Total Cases Median Mean
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
30
20
16
13
24
15
12
16
19
12
25
24
16
17
22
22
11
36
25
25
100% 1275
100% 328
100% 192
100% 501
120.1
200.6
178.3
180.3
152.8
251.6
223.3
217.5
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
24
23
19
20
20
20
18
17
19
20
100% 1447
100% 846
150.2
149.6
186.8
190.0
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
18
18
22
34
17
19
20
21
20
23
20
17
21
21
18
13
24
19
20
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
501
600
610
589
175.4
161.1
150.2
118.9
206.0
196.9
192.6
161.3
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50 or more miles
50ormoremiles
54
32
20
9
5
25
24
24
17
8
10
24
27
21
15
6
13
19
28
23
5
7
10
25
49
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
425
509
493
425
456
79.6
118.6
144.9
199.0
260 9
260.9
101.9
140.1
164.9
216.3
314 9
314.9
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
41
29
21
16
13
20
24
19
22
14
18
21
20
21
20
13
14
19
20
22
8
12
21
21
31
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
402
473
441
461
530
101.4
121.3
158.4
161.6
199.8
131.3
154.0
201.6
201.0
242.2
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
94
44
10
7
1
5
39
32
15
6
1
13
37
30
12
0
3
17
32
25
0
1
4
16
56
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
268
515
345
638
546
44.4
91.0
147.3
180.8
296.1
47.3
97.8
149.4
196.2
340.7
One
34
Two
19
Threeormore
19
21
21
17
19
21
19
13
19
20
13
20
25
100%
100%
100%
713
922
675
119.2
159.7
162.9
153.7
195.8
210.6
Page81
Table14
AverageDailyMilesDrivenAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
AverageMilesDrivenPerDay
3049 50miles
miles
ormore Total
18
20
100%
9miles
orless
19
919
miles
22
2029
miles
21
14
12
14
21
30
21
18
21
23
26
19
22
19
21
23
21
21
22
17
11
25
27
24
18
10
33
21
17
14
11
25
24
23
21
17
20
21
23
19
21
10
17
20
20
23
22
22
15
14
22
23
22
19
20
19
22
23
13
23
20
23
18
22
Cases
2335
Median
20.3
Mean
29.4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
310
399
520
501
601
24.8
25.8
24.8
19.6
14.7
33.2
35.1
34.0
26.0
19.8
12
17
17
26
28
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
290
394
508
491
505
13.4
19.4
20.2
25.0
28.8
20.2
25.5
29.2
33.8
35.9
16
18
18
24
20
18
23
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
700
469
678
480
20.0
19.6
20.5
24.7
28.1
28.0
30.6
31.2
22
20
19
18
26
16
100%
100%
1026
1309
25.0
25
0
19.4
34.6
34
6
24.9
21
23
21
21
19
16
21
18
100%
100%
1979
355
20.4
19.3
29.9
26.7
20
17
14
24
21
25
23
21
16
20
21
20
22
19
21
16
21
19
22
18
18
19
24
19
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
654
526
569
87
499
20.0
21.9
24.7
20.9
19.8
27.0
29.1
33.0
29.4
28.6
25
20
20
13
22
24
22
21
19
20
20
23
16
16
20
20
18
20
18
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
490
613
436
796
19.0
20.0
20.3
24.6
25.9
28.3
28.9
32.3
The question was: Approximately, how many miles do you typically drive the [MAKE/MODEL] in an average day,
including going to and from work, doing errands, household tasks, or for any other reason?
Page82
Table14a
AverageDailyMilesDrivenAmongDemographicSubgroups
9miles
orless
919
miles
2029
miles
AverageMilesDrivenPerDay
3049 50miles
miles
ormore Total
Cases
Median
Mean
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
20
18
18
14
23
19
23
22
19
18
22
25
18
18
17
22
20
27
20
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
1291
330
193
505
20.1
24.8
19.9
23.1
28.7
33.9
27.7
28.5
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
18
20
21
23
21
20
18
18
22
19
100%
100%
1461
854
20.5
20.2
30.3
28.2
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
11
14
21
26
18
23
21
25
22
22
22
18
20
21
19
14
29
20
17
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
507
602
610
603
27.1
20.5
20.3
17.9
36.0
30.7
27.1
25.4
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50% 74%
50%74%
75%ormore
33
23
17
13
8
32
29
21
19
11
19
26
24
19
17
9
15
20
24
23
7
7
18
25
41
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
411
478
442
466
532
10.4
16.4
20.5
27 9
27.9
37.0
17.0
19.6
28.2
33 3
33.3
45.5
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
42
23
9
6
5
29
27
26
17
8
18
26
29
22
11
7
16
20
29
23
4
8
16
26
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
571
453
454
413
417
10.0
19.5
20.3
30.0
49.8
14.2
20.3
26.9
34.5
55.0
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
58
26
16
8
7
25
32
26
22
10
12
25
29
22
15
2
13
18
27
21
3
4
11
21
47
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
268
517
345
639
548
5.3
14.8
19.8
25.3
41.7
9.9
17.9
23.0
30.8
49.7
One
Two
Threeormore
24
18
14
25
21
20
22
20
21
15
21
19
14
20
26
100%
100%
100%
719
931
683
19.6
21.3
24.8
23.5
29.7
34.1
Page83
Table15
PercentofTotalMileageDrivenonHighwaysAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless 5%to19% 20%to49% 50%to74% 75%ormore Total Cases Median Mean
18
20
19
20
23
100% 2334
28.8
37.6
15
18
17
16
25
19
18
19
22
23
23
17
20
18
16
18
22
20
21
17
25
25
24
23
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
311
399
523
500
598
33.9
40.0
30.7
28.5
19.9
39.9
40.1
39.1
37.8
31.9
29
21
17
14
11
23
25
19
18
18
18
20
18
20
20
14
16
20
21
25
16
18
26
27
26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
291
394
508
491
505
15.1
21.2
30.8
41.2
45.8
28.4
32.5
40.3
42.0
43.1
24
19
15
12
20
20
21
19
15
21
21
21
18
18
19
24
23
22
24
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
698
469
679
481
24.0
25.0
30.4
39.2
35.8
36.2
38.2
41.0
12
23
18
22
19
19
23
17
28
19
100%
100%
1025
1309
49.1
21 3
21.3
43.4
32 7
32.7
18
21
18
29
19
19
21
15
24
16
100%
100%
1974
359
30.8
18.6
39.0
30.3
19
19
16
17
19
22
21
18
23
20
20
17
22
15
17
22
20
19
24
16
17
23
25
21
28
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
656
528
567
87
496
27.3
28.7
29.8
32.3
29.1
34.6
37.1
39.4
37.0
39.8
18
17
22
17
21
20
23
18
17
20
16
21
22
18
20
19
22
25
19
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
492
613
436
793
31.2
29.3
22.1
29.4
37.7
38.4
33.3
39.1
The question was: About what percent of the total miles that you drive the [MAKE/MODEL] are highway or freeway miles,
on average?
Page84
Table15a
PercentofTotalMileageDrivenonHighwaysAmongDemographicSubgroups
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless 5%to19% 20%to49% 50%to74% 75%ormore
Total
Cases Median Mean
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
19
17
19
17
21
18
21
19
18
16
21
22
20
21
19
18
22
28
20
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
1293
327
193
506
27.6
41.2
25.8
29.3
36.7
41.7
35.2
37.9
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
17
20
20
21
19
19
22
16
22
24
100%
100%
1461
853
30.7
24.5
38.3
36.5
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
11
17
19
24
18
20
21
22
19
19
21
16
25
19
20
16
27
25
19
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
507
602
611
601
46.1
30.5
24.4
21.7
43.9
38.7
34.5
34.7
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50 or more miles
50ormoremiles
33
26
17
9
7
25
27
26
17
6
18
18
21
20
17
14
17
18
26
24
10
12
18
28
46
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
432
516
496
426
459
10.4
10.4
21.6
46.9
68 6
68.6
23.8
26.9
33.3
45.9
58 4
58.4
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
31
19
16
13
8
25
24
22
16
13
17
19
19
20
21
14
21
20
22
21
13
17
23
29
37
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
570
453
454
412
418
10.6
24.9
29.0
45.4
50.1
25.7
33.2
37.9
43.4
51.4
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
35
28
16
13
9
25
23
26
20
13
16
19
19
19
21
12
16
21
22
21
12
14
18
26
36
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
269
516
344
640
548
10.2
15.7
24.0
40.9
48.9
22.8
28.8
34.0
41.7
49.4
One
Two
Threeormore
23
16
17
25
19
17
19
20
19
16
21
21
17
24
26
100%
100%
100%
721
929
683
19.7
31.3
39.7
30.9
39.4
41.3
Page85
Table16
LocationWhereRegularlyParkAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Attached
Garage
32
LocationWhereRegularlyPark
Unattached
Street,
Garage
Carport Driveway
lot
8
10
40
10
Total
100%
Cases
2322
20
34
29
35
39
5
8
8
9
11
10
5
8
12
17
48
46
46
37
25
17
7
9
7
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
308
397
521
500
593
17
25
29
36
45
9
8
8
9
8
19
11
13
7
3
40
45
41
39
38
15
11
9
9
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
290
392
506
487
504
21
32
38
43
9
8
7
9
14
10
8
8
45
41
39
31
11
9
8
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
694
470
674
477
29
35
9
7
9
11
41
39
12
8
100%
100%
1023
1299
36
14
9
4
10
13
39
45
6
24
100%
100%
1964
357
34
35
34
27
26
8
9
5
7
11
9
10
10
10
13
36
36
42
49
45
13
10
9
7
5
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
650
521
568
87
496
36
43
21
27
6
13
10
5
15
5
4
15
32
30
54
45
11
9
11
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
486
613
427
796
The question was: When at home, do you regularly park the [MAKE/MODEL]in a garage that is attached to
your home, in an unattached garage, in a carport, in your driveway or lot, on the street, or in a nearby
parking lot or structure?
Page86
Table16a
LocationWhereRegularlyParkAmongDemographicSubgroups
Attached
Garage
LocationWhereRegularlyPark
Unattached
Street,
Garage
Carport Driveway
lot
Total
Cases
11
9
7
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
1279
328
193
503
35
48
7
12
100%
100%
1447
852
8
11
9
12
35
39
40
44
7
5
10
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
501
597
609
599
11
8
9
6
8
12
14
9
9
8
36
36
35
44
49
12
10
11
6
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
429
513
491
423
457
31
32
37
33
29
8
8
8
8
9
12
10
9
9
10
38
37
37
42
45
11
13
9
8
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
407
477
439
461
529
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
34
35
33
34
24
11
7
9
5
8
14
11
10
8
7
30
34
41
43
54
11
13
7
10
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
563
451
453
409
415
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
35
37
33
35
24
11
10
10
6
7
15
11
12
9
7
31
32
36
41
52
8
10
9
9
10
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
265
512
344
634
545
One
Two
Threeormore
28
37
28
10
8
8
13
9
10
36
38
46
13
8
8
100%
100%
100%
714
923
683
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
35
19
31
35
8
8
8
9
11
11
5
10
35
53
49
40
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
39
21
9
8
10
11
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
43
36
34
19
7
9
7
10
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
29
32
36
35
28
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
Page87
Table17
AvailabilityofStandardElectricalOutlettoPlugInPHEV
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65orolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Yes
77
AvailabilityofOutlet
No
Total
23
100%
Cases
2316
66
80
82
80
77
34
20
18
20
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
308
395
517
499
593
66
70
76
84
84
34
30
24
16
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
288
389
506
486
502
74
77
79
81
26
23
21
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
695
470
671
473
83
72
17
28
100%
100%
1025
1291
82
50
18
50
100%
100%
1961
354
74
77
75
80
82
26
23
25
20
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
646
521
565
88
496
78
81
72
76
22
19
28
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
488
608
430
790
The question was: If you owned a plugin hybrid vehicle, is there a standard electrical
outlet where you regularly park at home that you could plug it in to recharge the
battery?
Page88
Table17a
AvailabilityofStandardElectricalOutlettoPlugInPHEV
AvailabilityofOutlet
Yes
No
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
73
85
80
81
27
15
20
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
1276
328
191
502
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
80
73
20
27
100%
100%
1444
848
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
81
81
77
71
19
19
23
29
100%
100%
100%
100%
501
598
607
593
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
75
75
76
80
80
25
25
24
20
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
432
507
487
424
457
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
75
73
76
81
80
25
27
24
19
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
403
473
438
463
529
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
75
72
77
81
81
25
28
23
19
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
564
448
452
410
413
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
74
78
75
76
79
26
22
25
24
21
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
265
510
340
637
543
One
Two
Threeormore
66
81
82
34
19
18
100%
100%
100%
712
919
683
Page89
Table18
WillingnesstoRechangePHEVinEveningHoursAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
RechargePHEVWhenElectricityDiscountedafter9pm
Mostof
Someof
Noeffecton
Always
thetime
thetime
whencharge
Total
35
39
5
21
100%
Cases
2290
33
36
39
38
29
41
48
41
36
29
5
3
8
5
5
21
13
12
21
37
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
309
397
518
493
570
31
41
35
37
30
28
29
43
42
49
4
5
7
6
4
37
25
15
15
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
276
383
501
486
504
36
35
35
33
29
37
46
46
6
6
5
6
29
22
14
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
678
463
668
475
34
36
38
39
6
5
22
20
100%
100%
1009
1281
36
30
39
37
5
6
20
27
100%
100%
1939
350
32
38
35
40
34
39
37
41
44
38
5
5
6
1
6
24
20
18
15
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
642
518
561
87
482
39
34
36
33
36
39
42
38
5
7
5
5
20
20
17
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
480
603
425
782
The question was: If there were discounted rates for recharging the battery after 9 P.M. , would
you always recharge the vehicle after 9 P.M., recharge it most of the time after 9 P.M., some of the
time after 9 P.M., or would it not not make any difference when you would recharge the battery?
Page90
Table18a
WillingnesstoRechangePHEVinEveningHoursAmongDemographicSubgroups
RechargePHEVWhenElectricityDiscountedafter9pm
Mostof
Someof
Noeffecton
thetime
thetime
whencharge
Total
Always
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
34
34
32
38
39
34
47
39
5
5
4
7
22
27
17
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
1258
320
192
501
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
35
36
41
35
5
6
19
23
100%
100%
1433
833
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
35
34
37
35
43
40
40
33
5
7
5
5
17
19
18
27
100%
100%
100%
100%
496
599
597
581
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
33
37
33
33
37
37
36
39
44
40
5
4
6
7
6
25
23
22
16
17
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
418
508
486
418
452
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
38
32
36
34
35
31
41
42
40
40
3
5
6
6
6
28
22
16
20
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
399
467
436
458
522
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
33
39
36
35
33
33
38
42
42
41
5
6
5
4
7
29
17
17
19
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
551
445
444
412
409
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
33
34
34
39
33
32
40
41
37
42
4
6
6
5
5
31
20
19
19
20
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
260
506
336
630
537
One
Two
Threeormore
35
36
33
32
40
43
6
5
5
27
19
19
100%
100%
100%
699
911
678
Page91
Table19
AdvantageofRechargingPHEVatHomeInsteadofRefuelingatGasStationbyDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Very
Important
67
AdvantageofRechargingPHEVatHome
Somewhat
NotVery
Notatall
Important
Important
Important
Total
23
5
5
100%
Cases
2314
64
70
70
67
63
28
22
23
23
20
5
5
4
4
6
3
3
3
6
11
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
309
398
519
499
586
61
65
66
69
72
26
18
26
24
22
4
8
4
4
4
9
9
4
3
2
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
287
391
506
487
502
63
69
68
70
23
21
24
23
6
4
5
4
8
6
3
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
693
472
670
475
66
67
23
23
6
4
5
6
100%
100%
1023
1291
69
59
22
26
4
7
5
8
100%
100%
1960
353
68
68
68
66
64
23
21
23
25
25
4
7
4
6
4
5
4
5
3
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
645
521
563
87
498
67
63
66
69
20
26
27
21
6
5
3
5
7
6
4
5
100%
100%
100%
100%
484
608
431
791
The question was: Now I will ask you about some potential advantages of plugin hybrid vehicles. First, you can
recharge a plugin hybrid battery at home and dont need to go to a gas station as often. Would you say that
this advantage is very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not at all important?
Page92
Table19a
AdvantageofRechargingPHEVatHomeInsteadofRefuelingatGasStationbyDemographicSubgroups
Very
Important
AdvantageofRechargingPHEVatHome
Somewhat
NotVery
Not
Important
Important
Important
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
65
64
75
70
24
22
21
22
5
6
3
4
6
8
1
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
1274
328
192
501
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
69
64
22
25
4
5
5
6
100%
100%
1439
851
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
71
68
68
62
22
23
22
25
4
5
4
6
3
4
6
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
500
599
602
596
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
64
68
66
68
68
24
22
23
23
23
5
4
4
5
6
7
6
7
4
3
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
429
509
488
425
454
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
63
68
67
68
68
24
22
25
24
20
5
5
5
5
6
8
5
3
3
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
406
471
440
460
527
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
66
67
63
70
70
21
24
25
23
22
5
4
7
4
4
8
5
5
3
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
560
448
451
410
416
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
66
67
64
67
68
21
23
25
23
23
5
5
5
5
4
8
5
6
5
5
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
263
511
342
634
543
One
Two
Threeormore
63
69
67
25
20
25
5
6
4
7
5
4
100%
100%
100%
705
923
684
Page93
Table20
MinimumAllElectricRangeForDailyNeedsAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
4059 6079 80+miles
27
14
23
<20miles
12
2039
24
Total
100%
Cases
2224
9
6
9
15
21
22
22
25
21
28
25
33
27
27
21
16
16
17
13
11
28
23
22
24
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
306
392
509
485
528
22
15
10
8
8
31
24
25
24
19
18
25
25
29
33
11
12
17
16
15
18
24
23
23
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
265
360
491
478
500
14
15
10
9
25
25
21
24
21
23
32
33
12
14
17
15
28
23
20
19
100%
100%
100%
100%
651
449
655
463
8
15
19
28
28
26
17
13
28
18
100%
100%
991
1233
11
17
23
26
27
23
15
14
24
20
100%
100%
1884
339
12
11
12
8
14
26
25
22
29
21
28
28
28
27
22
16
14
13
7
17
18
22
25
29
26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
625
501
545
83
470
12
14
12
11
25
25
26
22
27
25
28
26
14
14
12
16
22
22
22
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
470
587
408
759
The question was: For commuting to work and other daily errands, what is the minimum number of daily
miles that a plugin hybrid vehicle would need to be able to go on battery power alone in order for you to
consider buying one would you say less than twenty miles per day, twenty to thirtynine, forty to fifty
nine miles, sixty to seventynine miles, or more than eighty miles per day?
Page94
Table20a
MinimumAllElectricRangeForDailyNeedsAmongDemographicSubgroups
4059 6079 80+miles
<20miles
2039
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
14
9
14
9
26
16
27
24
26
26
26
28
12
18
16
17
22
31
17
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
1214
314
185
493
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
12
12
25
23
27
25
14
15
22
25
100%
100%
1389
813
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
9
12
11
15
21
27
26
22
28
24
30
24
15
14
15
15
27
23
18
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
487
582
582
558
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
31
16
11
2
1
26
30
32
23
8
19
25
28
39
23
10
11
10
18
24
14
18
19
18
44
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
391
489
474
412
450
PercentHighwayMiles
Percent
Highway Miles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
21
16
11
7
7
26
29
26
22
19
21
27
34
31
20
11
11
14
16
19
21
17
15
24
35
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
375
454
426
456
505
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
24
13
12
6
3
31
26
27
19
15
20
28
29
34
23
9
13
12
17
23
16
20
20
24
36
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
516
432
439
402
410
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
32
16
12
8
5
24
32
24
24
17
19
26
32
28
25
11
8
12
16
22
14
18
20
24
31
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
244
484
329
615
534
One
Two
Threeormore
16
11
9
30
22
21
23
29
27
12
15
17
19
23
26
100%
100%
100%
672
887
663
Page95
Table21
MainAdvantageofPHEVsAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
ReduceMoney
SpentonGas
31
ReduceVehicle
ReduceDependence
Emissions
onForeignOil
15
54
Total
100%
Cases
2301
43
36
31
28
21
12
14
13
18
15
45
50
56
54
64
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
310
396
517
495
579
29
29
34
35
30
14
16
11
14
18
57
55
55
51
52
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
283
388
505
482
502
31
28
33
32
12
14
15
20
57
58
52
48
100%
100%
100%
100%
684
465
672
476
33
30
14
15
53
55
100%
100%
1016
1285
31
32
14
15
55
53
100%
100%
1949
351
31
33
31
27
31
19
14
13
12
12
50
53
56
61
57
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
639
521
560
85
496
31
31
29
32
19
12
16
13
50
57
55
55
100%
100%
100%
100%
482
602
428
789
The question was: Please tell me which of the next three advantages of a plugin hybrid that I mention is the
most important reducing the amount of money spent on fuel, reducing vehicle emissions, or reducing
dependence on foreign oil?
Page96
Table21a
MainAdvantageofPHEVsAmongDemographicSubgroups
ReduceMoney
SpentonGas
ReduceVehicle
ReduceDependence
Emissions
onForeignOil
Total
Cases
54
58
50
54
100%
100%
100%
100%
1265
327
192
499
14
15
56
52
100%
100%
1433
844
27
29
34
33
14
16
13
15
59
55
53
52
100%
100%
100%
100%
500
596
599
589
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
29
29
31
35
32
17
15
12
16
12
54
56
57
49
56
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
422
512
485
421
452
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
28
30
30
34
33
16
14
14
14
14
56
56
56
52
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
397
473
440
459
523
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
24
32
30
37
35
17
13
16
14
12
59
55
54
49
53
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
555
447
445
411
414
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
24
27
34
29
39
15
14
15
17
12
61
59
51
54
49
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
261
511
341
627
541
One
Two
Threeormore
29
32
33
17
14
12
54
54
55
100%
100%
100%
702
919
678
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
30
32
31
33
16
10
19
13
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
30
33
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
Page97
Table22
PurchaseofPHEVDemonstatesEnvironmentalCommitmentAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
ImportanceofPHEVPurchasetoShowEnvironmentalCommitment
Very
Somewhat
NotVery
Notatall
Important
Important
Important
Important
Total
Cases
50
35
9
6
100%
2313
48
48
50
56
49
35
41
37
27
35
12
7
8
9
7
5
4
5
8
9
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
310
395
520
496
588
58
53
53
47
42
27
31
34
38
41
6
8
8
10
11
9
8
5
5
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
287
389
507
485
502
52
53
50
45
33
34
35
38
8
7
9
11
7
6
6
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
693
472
669
475
44
56
37
32
11
7
8
5
100%
100%
1019
1294
49
55
36
30
9
8
6
7
100%
100%
1960
352
53
49
51
44
49
33
36
33
41
36
9
8
9
10
8
5
7
7
5
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
644
520
566
86
497
48
51
49
51
33
34
39
34
10
8
9
8
9
7
3
7
100%
100%
100%
100%
483
605
431
794
The question was: A plugin hybrid vehicle would demonstrate your commitment to buying products that are
friendly to the environment.
Page98
Table22a
PurchaseofPHEVDemonstatesEnvironmentalCommitmentAmongDemographicSubgroups
ImportanceofPHEVPurchasetoShowEnvironmentalCommitment
Very
Somewhat
NotVery
Not
Important
Important
Important
Important
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
51
45
60
48
34
36
29
37
9
8
8
9
6
11
3
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
1271
328
193
502
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
51
49
35
35
8
9
6
7
100%
100%
1444
845
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
49
48
52
51
37
38
32
33
7
9
9
8
7
5
7
8
100%
100%
100%
100%
500
597
601
598
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
49
56
46
50
50
32
30
38
38
36
10
7
9
8
8
9
7
7
4
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
431
507
487
425
454
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
51
52
52
47
49
31
33
36
37
37
9
9
8
9
8
9
6
4
7
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
407
469
439
460
528
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
53
51
51
48
48
31
35
33
38
38
9
8
9
8
8
7
6
7
6
6
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
560
448
450
409
416
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
48
52
49
53
47
36
31
36
32
40
8
10
8
9
8
8
7
7
6
5
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
263
513
341
631
544
One
Two
Threeormore
55
51
45
31
34
39
7
9
10
7
6
6
100%
100%
100%
707
922
682
Page99
Table23
FrequencyPurchasedFluorescentLightBulbsAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Allthe
time
24
FrequencyofPurchaseofFluorescentLightBulbs
Mostof
Someof
Never
thetime
thetime Purchased
Total
22
30
24
100%
Cases
2284
24
24
23
23
26
20
23
25
22
20
29
30
32
32
25
27
23
20
23
29
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
306
391
515
490
578
25
27
25
24
21
15
19
21
26
29
24
26
30
32
32
36
28
24
18
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
280
383
504
481
492
25
26
22
23
18
21
25
27
27
27
32
32
30
26
21
18
100%
100%
100%
100%
680
463
665
472
23
25
23
21
32
28
22
26
100%
100%
1011
1273
24
23
22
23
31
25
23
29
100%
100%
1931
352
23
26
23
17
26
24
22
21
25
20
29
26
33
33
30
24
26
23
25
24
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
637
514
552
85
496
27
23
23
24
26
23
22
19
29
31
28
30
18
23
27
27
100%
100%
100%
100%
479
599
426
780
The question was: When you replace light bulbs, would you say that you buy compact fluorescent
light bulbs all the time, most of the time, some of the time, or do you never buy compact florescent
light bulbs?
Page100
Table23a
FrequencyPurchasedFluorescentLightBulbsAmongDemographicSubgroups
Allthe
time
FrequencyofPurchaseofFluorescentLightBulbs
Mostof
Someof
Never
thetime
thetime Purchased
Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
25
23
23
23
22
20
23
24
28
32
30
31
25
25
24
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
1250
324
190
501
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
24
24
23
20
30
29
23
27
100%
100%
1420
840
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
26
23
23
24
21
25
23
18
30
29
31
29
23
23
23
29
100%
100%
100%
100%
488
591
600
588
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
30
24
22
20
24
20
24
23
25
18
27
26
31
30
35
23
26
24
25
23
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
419
506
485
422
442
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
28
21
21
22
28
18
22
23
27
21
25
30
33
31
29
29
27
23
20
22
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
398
472
433
453
518
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
30
22
24
19
22
21
22
26
27
16
23
30
31
29
37
26
26
19
25
25
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
551
443
448
403
410
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
33
24
25
24
20
24
24
23
21
21
21
27
31
31
33
22
25
21
24
26
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
256
506
343
622
536
One
Two
Threeormore
24
24
24
19
24
22
26
29
34
31
23
20
100%
100%
100%
701
908
673
Page101
Table24
WillingnesstoOwnNewTechnologyAmongDemographicSubgroups
AllHouseholds
Age
1834
3544
4554
5564
65andolder
Income
Bottomfifth
Secondfifth
Middlefifth
Fourthfifth
Topfifth
Education
HighSchoolorless
SomeCollege
Collegedegree
Graduateschool
Gender
Male
Female
HomeOwnership
Own
Rent
MetropolitanStatus
Citycenter
Suburbancounty
MSAwithnocitycenter
NotinMSA
Region
West
NorthCentral
Northeast
South
Strongly
Agree
7
Wanttobe1sttoOwnNeworAdvancedTechnology
Strongly
Agree
Neither Disagree Disagree Total
34
2
43
14
100%
Cases
2321
9
6
7
7
8
36
36
36
34
30
1
1
2
1
2
42
42
43
42
46
12
15
12
16
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
309
398
522
501
587
10
9
6
6
7
38
30
33
35
37
1
3
1
1
1
36
44
47
46
42
15
14
13
12
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
287
393
507
486
502
8
8
6
6
38
33
35
29
1
1
2
2
40
43
44
47
13
15
13
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
692
472
673
480
10
5
37
32
1
2
39
46
13
15
100%
100%
1026
1295
7
7
34
37
1
3
44
38
14
15
100%
100%
1964
356
8
7
6
5
8
33
31
38
39
35
2
1
2
0
0
44
43
42
45
44
13
18
12
11
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
650
520
566
86
499
8
6
7
8
32
33
37
35
1
1
2
2
44
44
41
43
15
16
13
12
100%
100%
100%
100%
487
610
430
794
The question was: Now please tell me how strongly you agree or disagree with the following
statement: I want to be the first to own new or advanced technology. Would you say you strongly
agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree?
Page102
Table24a
WillingnesstoOwnNewTechnologyAmongDemographicSubgroups
Strongly
Agree
Wanttobe1sttoOwnNeworAdvancedTechnology
Strongly
Agree
Neither Disagree Disagree Total
Cases
TypeofVehicle
Car
Pickup
Van
SUV
7
7
7
8
34
38
31
34
1
2
1
1
44
40
43
44
14
13
18
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
1276
329
193
504
PurchasedNeworUsed
New
Used
7
7
33
36
2
1
45
40
13
16
100%
100%
1446
851
AgeofVehicle
02years
35years
69years
10yearsorolder
8
6
7
8
34
35
35
33
1
2
2
1
46
44
42
42
11
13
14
16
100%
100%
100%
100%
502
601
606
595
AverageMilesperDay
9milesorless
1019miles
2029miles
3049miles
50ormoremiles
7
7
6
8
8
34
34
34
32
37
1
2
1
2
1
41
43
45
46
41
17
14
14
12
13
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
428
511
491
426
455
PercentHighwayMiles
4%orless
5%19%
20%49%
50%74%
75%ormore
7
9
7
6
8
30
32
35
40
33
1
2
1
2
2
46
43
43
41
43
16
14
14
11
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
408
476
440
460
526
MonthlyCostofGas
$80orless
$81$130
$131$190
$191$260
$261ormore
6
9
7
5
9
32
33
35
38
34
1
2
2
1
2
43
43
45
44
40
18
13
11
12
15
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
562
451
450
412
416
One
Two
Three
Four
Fiveormore
6
6
10
6
9
33
32
36
34
35
1
1
2
2
1
43
44
41
46
41
17
17
11
12
14
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
263
515
345
632
545
One
Two
Threeormore
8
7
7
34
33
37
2
1
1
42
44
43
14
15
12
100%
100%
100%
709
927
683
Page103

Fetchdoc PHP

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fetchdoc PHP

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITYOFMICHIGAN

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

The probability distribution changes

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

AgeofHouseholder. PHEV purchase probabilities showed little variation for consumers

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

These recharging requirements are reflected by a range of demographic characteristics and

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

While differences in the fuel

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Demographic Characteristics. The education of the respondent demonstrated the strongest

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ____________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

The questions were:

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles_________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ______________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ____________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles ____________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles______________________________________________________________________________________University of Michigan

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles __________________________________________________________________________________________ University of Michigan