California has set a goal of reaching 100% zero emission vehicle (ZEV) sales by 2035. Most ZEV sales to date have been battery electric vehicles (BEVs) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), while fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) make up only a small portion of ZEV sales. The market for FCEVs may be partially constrained because, unlike BEVs and PHEVs, they cannot use any existing infrastructure. This research investigates FCEV drivers use of hydrogen stations in California (of which there are 47 in operation) with the goal of informing the development of hydrogen infrastructure. Hydrogen station use was studied using results from a 2017 survey of 395 fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) owners and a 2018 survey of 328 FCEV owners. The results show FCEV drivers use on average 2.4 hydrogen stations. The average shortest distance FCEV owners would need to travel from home, work, or their commute to a hydrogen refueling station was 10 miles. Those whose most-used station was not the closest station available were more likely than those whose most-used station was the closest to use renewable hydrogen, suggesting that some drivers may prefer renewable hydrogen. Currently the percentage of California census block groups with one, two, and three hydrogen stations within 10 miles of households are 52.4%, 25.6%, and 22.5%; these census block groups are concentrated primarily in large metropolitan areas. Finally, 70% of FCEV owners said they would not have purchased the vehicle if their primary station had not been available, pointing the importance of station availability to FCEV adoption.

This research makes explicit and tests an implicit assumption in policies promoting public investment in plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging infrastructure: even people who are not already interested in PEVs see public PEV charging. Data from a survey representing all car-owning households in California are combined with per capita counts of public PEV charging locations and PEV registrations to estimate a structural equation model for two central variables: the extent to which participants have already considered acquiring a battery electric vehicle (BEV) or plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and whether and how many places people see PEV charging. The model controls for socio-economic and demographic measures as well as participants’ awareness, knowledge, and assessments of PEVs. The model also controls for the known spatial correlation between PEV registrations and public PEV charging locations. The conclusion is there is no evidence of a relationship between public charging location density and participants reporting they see PEV charging locations. Nor is there a relationship between public charging location density and PEV purchase consideration. The evidence indicates there is little reason to assume building more public PEV charging means more people will see that charging or that more people will consider purchasing a PEV. Rather, awareness, knowledge, and positive assessments of PEVs allow people to see PEV charging in their local environment. In short, interest in PEVs is a prerequisite to people seeing PEV charging. Concomitant investments to increase awareness of PEVs and engagement in a transition to them as well as in PEV charging infrastructure may be a more effective way to grow the PEV market.