This paper discusses potential barriers to electric vehicle purchase in fleets and how these could be overcome by policymakers, fleets, and organizations with fleets. Fleets may face unique challenges to electrification and require different support than is provided to private consumers due to their variety of vehicle uses and applications. The paper is divided into discussions on purchase issues and those on operational issues. Purchase issues include ensuring plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) are available across different vehicle types, creating educational campaigns for both decision-makers and fleet vehicle drivers, and tailoring incentives to the fleet context. Operational issues include factors such as creating post-purchase incentives, implementing low-emission zones and congestion charges, and facilitating utility support for fleet vehicle charging installations.
Accurately predicting the spatial distribution and charging demand of future electric vehicles is vital to directing investment in charging infrastructure and planning policy interventions. To date, this expansion has been heavily concentrated in wealthy cities and suburbs, among commuters, and among households able to charge their vehicles at home. The expansion of EV ownership will include both changes in where the vehicles are owned as well as how they are used and charged. This paper demonstrates methods to predict where the expansion of electric vehicle ownership is likeliest to occur under current market characteristics and allow for testing of scenarios of future characteristics. These methods are demonstrated with an analysis of California, using a scenario of 4 million battery electric vehicles and 1 million plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, to match the state’s goal of 5 million zero-emission vehicles by 2030. These projections are combined with a model for charging behavior to generate scenarios of demand for charging away from home under various fleet characteristics and identify areas of the state with the greatest need for infrastructure investment.
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 paper investigates strategies to increase charging station utilization, reduce congestion, and increase access to chargers at workplaces. Interviews with plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) drivers across California revealed three styles of workplace charging management: authoritative (rules introduced by the employer), collective (rules introduced by employees), and unmanaged (no rules in place). Authoritative charging included digital queuing, time limits with pricing, pricing, and valet charging. Collective management included day restrictions, time restrictions, messaging groups, and spreadsheets with driver information. Charging management strategies can increase accessibility and utilization of stations by reducing congestion, increasing vehicle throughput and discouraging those that do not need to charge from doing so. Workplaces with charging management may need less charging infrastructure to support more PEVs. Interviewees reported positive experiences with the charging management strategies at their workplaces. Charging management strategies appear to be a user-friendly approach to reducing charge point congestion, vehicles overstaying, and increase utilization of workplace charging.
The market for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) that primarily include battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) has been rapidly growing in California for the past few years. Given the targets for PEV penetration in the state, it is important to have a better understanding of the pattern of technology diffusion and the factors that are driving the process. Using spatial analysis and Poisson count models, the researchers identify the importance of a neighborhood effect (at home locations) and workplace effect (at commute destinations) in supporting the diffusion of PEV technology in California. In the case of new BEV sales, they found that exposure to one additional BEV or PHEV within a 1-mile radius of a block group centroid is associated with a 0.2% increase in BEV sales in the block group. Interestingly, for new PHEV sales, the neighborhood effect of BEV sales is negative, suggesting that enhanced exposure to this type of technology (which is differentiated in distinctive ways from PHEVs) may impact new PHEV sales through a substitution effect. Specifically, higher BEV concentration in an area can have an overall negative effect on new PHEV sales. While the neighborhood effect at residential locations is important, the workplace effect also has a notably important effect on new PEV sales. Both effects work in combination with socioeconomic, demographic, policy, and built environment factors in encouraging PEV adoption. These results suggest that policymakers should consider targeted programs and investments that can boost the impact of neighborhood and peer effects on PEV sales
View the NCST Project Webpage
While ownership and purchase of all vehicles approach gender parity, to date electric vehicles (EV) are being purchased by far more men than women. Prior analysis from California finds no reason in the available data why this difference persists. This report extends that analysis across 12 other U.S. states with varying, but generally less supportive than California, EV policy and market contexts. Data are from a survey conducted of new-car buying households at the end of 2014, which allowed participants to express their prospective interest in acquiring an EV. Participants then indicated why they were motivated to select an EV or what motivated them to not select one. Via multivariate modeling, differences in prospective interest in EVs between female and male respondents are examined, and overall, no difference rises to the level of the observed differences in real EV markets. Further, the multivariate modeling indicates no statistically significant effect of a sex indicator on prospective interest almost anywhere in these data; where there is a difference, female participants are estimated to be more likely to select an EV than their male counterparts. While participants from both sexes tend to give high scores to the same EV (de)motivations, differences in their rank orders repeat generalizations from other research. On average, female respondents score environmental motivations for selecting an EV higher than do male respondents. On average, male participants score interest in “new technology” as a motivation for selecting an EV higher than do female participants. Conversely, on average female respondents who do not select an EV score “unfamiliar technology” more highly than their male counterparts. Within the variation in EV policy and market contexts represented in this study, no finding here explains why similar prospective interest in EVs from five years ago has yet to be turned toward equal participation in EV markets. Explanations may lie in factors not modeled here.