Vehicles that can run on both electricity and gasoline—so-called plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)—are proposed as both a near-term technology to achieve energy and environmental goals and a transitional step toward viable all-electric vehicles addressing many of the same goals. Whether PHEVs meet any of their goals depends not only on their design and performance on standardized drive cycles, but also on drivers’ travel and refueling/recharging behaviors. To replace assumptions with observations of potential PHEV drivers’ behavior in market and impact analyses, we conducted an internet-based survey of 2,373 new car-buying households in the United States. The instrument was implemented in three separate pieces, requiring multiple days for households to answer questions, conduct a review of their own driving and parking patterns, and then complete a sequence of PHEV design exercises. In this paper, we draw five conclusions from the resulting data. First, most new vehicle buyers are unaware of PHEVs in particular and are confused about electric-drive terminology commonly used by experts. Second, at least half of our target population is already equipped for at-home vehicle recharging, but currently have little opportunity for recharging at their workplace or other locations. Third, we observed widely varied interests in four possible PHEV attributes—fuel economy in both charge-depleting (CD) and charge sustaining (CS) operation, blended vs. all-electric operation, the distance over which the vehicle is in CD mode, and recharging speed. Still, the appeal of increased fuel economy appears to be highest and that of faster recharging to be lowest. Further, there is little interest in all-electric operation. Fourth, given the previous two points, we estimate that about a third of the target population has both the infrastructure to recharge a PHEV and interest in a vehicle with plug-in capabilities. Fifth, our recharge scenarios demonstrate that although widespread PHEV use could halve gasoline use, impacts to the electricity grid could highly depend on the time-of-day and location recharge management strategy. While unconstrained recharging among PHEV buyers may exacerbate current peak electricity demand, pushing vehicle recharging to off-peak hours through charging controls, time of day tariffs or other means could reduce overall electricity used by vehicles. Overall, policy, technology, and energy providers may use this information to understand whether their plans, designs, and goals align with these present understandings, or whether it would be collectively beneficial to foster new understandings of PHEVs among U.S. carbuyers.

To explore the role of social interactions in individuals’ assessments of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), this study analyzes over 190 social (interpersonal) interactions elicited in interviews with 31 individuals in eight different social networks centered on households in the Sacramento, California region. Results are framed within five theoretical perspectives on social influence: contagion, conformity, dissemination, translation, and reflexivity. Responses within networks centered on participants in a study of consumer response to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) suggest that interpersonal interactions do shape consumers assessments of PHEVs, and likely electric-drive vehicles generally. Characterizing how social interactions influence vehicle assessments and adoption behaviors, contagion (including diffusion of innovations), conformity, and dissemination provide useful concepts, but translation and reflexivity better provide the language and theoretical depth required to integrate the various motives and perceptions observed. Through translation and reflexivity, preliminary analysis suggests that certain types of households and social network may be more amenable to developing new, pro-societal interpretations of vehicle technology—particularly those households that: i) are in a liminal state in their lifestyle practices, ii) already have a basic understanding of functional aspects of PHEV technology, and iii) find supportive pro-societal values within their social network. This exploratory, qualitative study demonstrates that social interactions are important and their study benefits from the development and use of behaviorally realistic theoretical frameworks to advance transportation and energy policies that rely on the widespread uptake of new technologies.

Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) can be powered by gasoline, grid electricity, or both. To explore potential PHEV energy impacts, a three-part survey instrument collected data from new vehicle buyers in California. We combine the available information to estimate the electricity and gasoline use under three recharging scenarios. Results suggest that the use of PHEV vehicles could halve gasoline use relative to conventional vehicles. Using three scenarios to represent plausible conditions on PHEV drivers’ recharge patterns (immediate and unconstrained, universal workplace access, and off-peak only), tradeoffs are described between the magnitude and timing of PHEV electricity use. PHEV electricity use could be increased through policies supporting non-home recharge opportunities, but this increase occurs during daytime hours and could contribute to peak electricity demand. Deferring all recharging to off-peak hours could eliminate all additions to daytime electricity demand from PHEVs, although less electricity is used and less gasoline displaced.

The notion persists that battery technology and cost remain as barriers to commercialization of electric-drive passenger vehicles. Within the context of starting a market for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), we explore two aspects of the purported problem: (1) PHEV performance goals and (2) the abilities of present and near-term battery chemistries to meet the resulting technological requirements. We summarize evidence stating that battery technologies do not meet the requirements that flow from three sets of influential PHEV goals due to inherent tradeoffs among power, energy, longevity, cost, and safety. However, we also show that part of this battery problem is the overly ambitious PHEV performance goals thought to be necessary to meet consumer priorities. We elicited PHEV designs from potential early buyers among U.S. new car buyers; most of those who are interested in a PHEV are interested in less technologically advanced PHEVs than assumed by experts. Using respondents’ PHEV designs, we derive peak power density and energy density requirements and show that current battery chemistries can meet them. By assuming too aggressive PHEV goals, existing policy initiatives, battery research, and vehicle development programs mischaracterize the batteries needed to start commercializing PHEVs. To answer the question whether batteries are ready for PHEVs, we must first answer the question, “whose PHEVs?”

The notion persists that battery technology and cost remain as barriers to commercialization of electric-drive passenger vehicles. Within the context of starting a market for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), we explore two aspects of the purported problem: (1) PHEV performance goals and (2) the abilities of present and near-term battery chemistries to meet the resulting technological requirements. We summarize evidence stating that battery technologies do not meet the requirements that flow from three sets of influential PHEV goals due to inherent tradeoffs among power, energy, longevity, cost, and safety. However, we also show that part of this battery problem is the overly ambitious PHEV performance goals thought to be necessary to meet consumer priorities. We elicited PHEV designs from potential early buyers among U.S. new car buyers; most of those who are interested in a PHEV are interested in less technologically advanced PHEVs than assumed by experts. Using respondents’ PHEV designs, we derive peak power density and energy density requirements and show that current battery chemistries can meet them. By assuming too aggressive PHEV goals, existing policy initiatives, battery research, and vehicle development programs mischaracterize the batteries needed to start commercializing PHEVs. To answer the question whether batteries are ready for PHEVs, we must first answer the question, “whose PHEVs?”

The notion persists that battery technology and cost remain as barriers to commercialization of electric-drive passenger vehicles. Within the context of starting a market for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), we explore two aspects of the purported problem: (1) PHEV performance goals and (2) the abilities of present and near-term battery chemistries to meet the resulting technological requirements. We summarize evidence stating that battery technologies do not meet the requirements that flow from three sets of influential PHEV goals due to inherent tradeoffs among power, energy, longevity, cost, and safety. However, we also show that part of this battery problem is the overly ambitious PHEV performance goals thought to be necessary to meet consumer priorities. We elicited PHEV designs from potential early buyers among U.S. new car buyers; most of those who are interested in a PHEV are interested in less technologically advanced PHEVs than assumed by experts. Using respondents’ PHEV designs, we derive peak power density and energy density requirements and show that current battery chemistries can meet them. By assuming too aggressive PHEV goals, existing policy initiatives, battery research, and vehicle development programs mischaracterize the batteries needed to start commercializing PHEVs. To answer the question whether batteries are ready for PHEVs, we must first answer the question, “whose PHEVs?”

The notion persists that battery technology and cost remain as barriers to commercialization of electric-drive passenger vehicles. Within the context of starting a market for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), we explore two aspects of the purported problem: (1) PHEV performance goals and (2) the abilities of present and near-term battery chemistries to meet the resulting technological requirements. We summarize evidence stating that battery technologies do not meet the requirements that flow from three sets of influential PHEV goals due to inherent trade-offs among power, energy, longevity, cost, and safety. However, we also show that part of this battery problem is that those influential goals are overly ambitious compared to goals derived from consumers’ PHEV designs. We elicited PHEV designs from potential early buyers among U.S. new car buyers; most of those who are interested in a PHEV are interested in less technologically advanced PHEVs than assumed by experts. Using respondents’ PHEV designs, we derive peak power density and energy density requirements and show that current battery chemistries can meet them. By assuming too aggressive PHEV goals, existing policy initiatives, battery research, and vehicle development programs mischaracterize the batteries needed to start commercializing PHEVs. To answer the question whether batteries are ready for PHEVs, we must first answer the question, ‘‘whose PHEVs?’’