Monetary EV Incentive Programs, Their Impact, and Select ...

transcript

Monetary EV Incentive Programs, Their Impact, and Select Lessons Learned

Columbus EV Policy Workshop, 8 September 2016, Columbus OH

Brett Williams, M.Phil.(cantab), Ph.D. – Principal Advisor, Clean Transportation

Thanks also to Clair Johnson, John Anderson, Colin Santulli, and others at CSE

Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE)

Building Performance

Clean Transportation

Distributed Generation

Energy Efficiency

Energy Storage

Renewable Energy

CSE’s Plug-In & Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicle (EV) Activities

Incentives Design & Administration

Fleet Assistance & Clean Cities

PEV, Alt.-Fuel, & ZEV Planning & Implementation

Consumer & Dealer Outreach

Stakeholder Engagement

2nd Life Battery Research & Vehicle-

Grid Integration

• Design • Implementation

Practices & Lessons • Impact & Analysis • Concluding Remarks

Outline: EV Incentive Programs: CA, MA & CT

Program Design CVRP (CA), MOR-EV (MA), and CHEAPR (CT)

CSE has processed >160k rebates totaling >$343M

California (CVRP), 2010–present

• Air Resources Board • 2007 Legislation (AB118, then AB8) allowing

vehicle registration fees • Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund

Massachusetts (MOR-EV), 2014–present

• Department of Energy Resources • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

Connecticut (CHEAPR), 2015–present

• Department of Energy & Environmental Protection • Utility Settlement • Vehicle rebate and dealer incentive (consumer can also assign vehicle rebate to dealer)

EV Incentive Programs: Rebate Amounts

All-Battery Electric Vehicles

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Neighborhood Electric Vehicles

Zero-Emission Motorcycles

Fuel-Cell Electric Vehicles

$2,500

$2,500 (i3 REx)

$1,500

$5,000

$2,500

$2,500 (>10kWh)

$1,500

$2,500

*MSRP > $60k = $1,000

$5,000

*MSRP < $60k only

$3,000 > 18 kWh

$1,500 10 to 18 kWh

$750 < 10 kWh

$3,000 > 25 kWh

$1,500 20 to 25 kWh

$750 < 20 kWh

Dealer incentive:

Additional Features: Variation

Equity Income cap,

increased rebate for LMI

Reduced rebate for MSRP >$60k

$60k MSRP cap

Payment Check ACH to Dealer (point of sale) or Consumer

Applicant In-state

individual or fleet

In-state individual

In-state dealer or individual/

fleet consumer

Application Within 18 months

Within 3 months

Within 3 calendar days

Implementation and Lessons Learned

EV Incentive Programs: Common Components

1. Outreach: Promote Awareness & Access

– Consumer events, dealer training and support, social media, equity partnerships

2. Rebate Processing: Simplify & Automate

– Simplify eligibility and application process

– Automate to ease, speed and instill confidence

3. Program Transparency & Evaluation

– Collect data: consumer, vehicle, and market data, surveys (adoption, ownership, dealers)

– Make public: program data available via online tools and datasets

– Improve and inform: program implementation and stakeholders informed by evaluation

Step 1: Education & Outreach Increase awareness of products, benefits, and incentives

Outreach & Education: Consumers

• Community and industry events

– Branded booth and marketing materials

• Program hotline, live support staff, and website

Outreach: Equity

• Language support – Website and application in

Spanish, planned Chinese and Tagalog translations

– Live staff support in Spanish and Mandarin

• Increased outreach & education efforts in disadvantaged communities – Partnerships with community-

based environmental-justice and other organizations

• Targeted marketing collateral – Geography-specific – Incentive “stacking” with

retirement & replacement programs, equity bonuses, etc.

Dealer Outreach & Education: Webinars

• Over half of MA and CA survey respondents report they first heard about the rebate at the dealership

• Periodic general webinars and brand-specific webinars as products added to the program – incentive overview & updates – how to sell more EVs:

• consumer survey feedback • top three services • other incentives • charging, etc.

Dealer Outreach & Education: Direct

• OEM- / dealer-association-sponsored group training

• Direct dealership outreach

• 1-on-1 inquiry support

• Dealership outreach brochure and EV marketing materials – incentives

– utility rates

• Tracking

Step 2: Program Portal Inform, provide confidence, simplify application, and automate processing

Rebate Processing

cleanvehiclerebate.org mor-ev.org ct.gov/deep/cheapr

18 www.ct.gov/deep/CHEAPR

Increase Confidence

Available Funding: Transparency is Key

• Updated in real-time, accessible by dealers and consumers

• Maximize consumer and industry confidence

• Avoid market disruption

Simplify and Automate Application

www.ct.gov/deep/CHEAPR

Application Process: Simplicity is Key

Go to website Step 1

Fill out streamlined application

Submit supporting documents via email (or online)

Receive funds via electronic transfer (or check)

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4

Application Requirements:

• Consumer information

• Vehicle information

• Dealer information

Supporting Documentation:

• Sales/lease contract

• Vehicle registration

• CT driver’s license

• Dealer ACH form (one time

per dealership) and rebate

transfer form

• or consumer ACH form

Application: Simplicity is Key

Supporting Documents

Submit documents via email (MA and CT) or online (CA)

Purchase/Lease Agreement

Proof of Residency and Registration

At scale: Automate

• Funding status updates

• Eligibility pre-screening and application detail verification

• Application status updates and emails

Benefits:

• Improves application experience

• Increases consumer confidence

• Reduces administrative burden

25 www.ct.gov/deep/CHEAPR

Inform and Improve

Program Statistics

Rebate Distribution Map by Zip

Transparency & Evaluation

• Facilitates informed decision making

• Provides data for measuring and improving incentive and outreach effectiveness

• Informs industry, gov’t, and NGO stakeholders

• Reduces administrative burden

Where can I get the data?: CSE Transparency Tools

• Public, online, interactive dashboards facilitate informed action

• Up-to-date rebate-application and participant-survey data – Characterize >150,000 EVs and consumers

zevfacts.com

cleanvehiclerebate.org

mor-ev.org

ct.gov/deep

(zevfacts.com)

zevfacts.com

Consumer Surveys

• Topics: – Demographics

– Vehicle Use

– Purchase Motivations

– Charging behavior and needs

– Utility rate awareness

• Filter by: vehicle category, buy/lease, make, region

• Responses – CVRP: >27,000

– MOR-EV: >1,400

– CHEAPR: >400

cleanvehiclerebate.org/eng/survey-dashboard

Rebate Influence & Impact

Vehicle Replacement Rates

EV Replaced Previous Vehicle

MOR-EV survey (Jun ’14 thru Feb ‘16)

PHEVs 76% non-Tesla BEVs 64% CHEAPR survey (May ‘15 thru Jun ‘16)

PHEVs 81% non-Tesla BEVs 62% CVRP CV Survey (Jun ’15 thru Mar ‘16)

PHEVs 83% non-Tesla BEVs 66%

Vehicle Replacement Rates

EV Replaced Previous Vehicle

CVRP EV Survey, weighted (Sep ‘12 thru May ‘15)

PHEVs 72% non-Tesla BEVs 56% MOR-EV survey (Jun ’14 thru Feb ‘16)

PHEVs 76% non-Tesla BEVs 64% CHEAPR survey (May ’15 thru Jun ‘16)

PHEVs 80% Non-Tesla BEVs 60% CVRP CV Survey (Jun ’15 thru Mar ‘16)

PHEVs 83% non-Tesla BEVs 66%

The need for sustained policy signals: Turning a $5,000 incentive off and back on in B.C.

Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.

Studies on Incentive Effects Can Be Confusing

• Lutsey et al. (2015)

Monetary value of incentives positively related to BEV market share, number of city monetized actions positively related to PHEV market share

• Clinton et al. (2015)

Stronger positive incentive effect on non-Tesla registrations

• Jin et al. (2014), Narassimhan & Johnson (2014)

Incentives positively related to BEV sales

• Sierzchula et al. (2014)

Positive relationship between financial incentives and EV market share

• Jenn et al. (2013)

Positive relationship between financial incentives and hybrid sales, but not if incentive <$1000

• Multiple studies find relationships and fail to find relationships between incentives and market changes

Where does the literature get us?

• Monetary incentives have an important effect and role to play, but results can seem inconsistent due to the variety of factors to be explored, as well as varying: – Time frames – Geographical bounds – Consumer characteristics – Other aspects of data selection and model

specification

• An intermediate way to assess effect is to ask the consumers – Patterns in those responses can help us understand

factors that make the rebate more or less effective

Motivation

• 73% of 16,000 respondents said the California rebate (CVRP) was a very or extremely important factor in making it possible to acquire an EV (Mar 2015)

• 80% of respondents said Massachusetts rebate (MOR-EV) was an important factor in the decision making process (Dec 2014)

EV Consumer Survey (CVRP vehicles acquired 9/1/12 - 6/17/15)

40 Source: MOR-EV , CVRP and CHEAPR Program Survey Analysis

Influence of Incentive

0% 30% 60% 90%

Rebate Assigned toDealership

Rebate claimed directlyby consumer

Would not have purchased without CHEAPR

California

Massachusetts

Connecticut

Glass half full:

Rebates effectively more than doubling the EVs on the roads

Q12013

Q22013

Q32013

Q42013

Q12014

Q22014

Q32014

Q42014

Q12015

Q22015

Would you have purchased or leased your vehicle without the state vehicle (CVRP) rebate?

CVRP Influence on Purchase/Lease is Increasing

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Saving money on fuel costs

Reducing environmental impacts

HOV lane access

Increased energy independence

A desire for newest technology

Vehicle performance

Primary Purchase Motivations: Diverse Consumers

Total Responses: 335 Overall Time Frame: 9/17/2012–10/31/2015

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Saving money on fuel costs

Reducing environmental impacts

HOV lane access

Increased energy independence

A desire for newest technology

Vehicle performance

Total Responses: 103 Overall Time Frame: 11/9/2012–9/12/2015

Rebate Influence Importance of the rebate in making it

possible to acquire a PEV.

All <$60k MSRP >$60k MSRP

Rebate Influence

Importance of the rebate in making it

possible to acquire a PEV.

All <$60k MSRP >$60k MSRP

Target Consumers: “Rebate Essential” Segment

Consumers most influenced by the rebate:

• Vehicle characteristics: lower price, bought (vs. lease)

• Demographics: younger, male, non-white, lower HH income, higher education

• Motivations and interest: less motivated by environmental impacts, more motivated by saving money on fuel and energy independence, lower initial interest in EVs

• Information gathering: found it more difficult to find info on EVs, spent more time researching online, learned about the rebate before going to the dealership

Influence on Adoption by Rebate Amount

CVRP MOR-EV CHEAPR

Rebate PHEV BEV* PHEV BEV* PHEV BEV*

$ 750 N/A N/A N/A N/A 44%** N/A

$ 1,500 43% N/A 34% N/A 61% 44%**

$ 2,500 N/A 63% 55% 56% N/A N/A

$ 3,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A 76% 71%

* BEV figures exclude Tesla ** Sample size too small

Concluding Remarks

(zevfacts.com)

Meeting a Goal of 3,200 New Sales by 2018

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Planned unincentivized

Planned incentivized

Estimated historical

10-State Aggressive EV Goals

(image from zevfacts.com)

Select Take-Aways

• Wide variety of program designs and funding sources • Outreach & education, streamlined application & processing, and

data transparency & evaluation are key program features • EV consumer differences from general population lessened in

comparison to new-vehicle buyers/“intenders” • Signs indicate markets are slowly shifting towards more mainstream

consumers • There are many prominent motivations for adoption (e.g., low fuel

costs), but these can vary considerably as consumers are sliced into small segments

• Incentives shown to be effective and important • Rebates are a very influential enabler of the purchase/lease for a

large percentages of drivers that can be targeted • The stated importance of the state monetary incentive is growing • Strong, clear, sustained policy signals are necessary to achieve

aggressive goals

We work nationally in the clean energy industry and are always open to exploring partnership opportunities.

Thank you for your attention

What would you like to know more about? What decisions are you facing? brett.williams@energycenter.org

Extra Slides

Who is participating? Rebated Consumers

Rebated Consumer Characteristics

Housing

Education

Gender

Total Responses: 25,217 Overall Time Frame: 9/1/2012–11/15/2015

Majority Characteristics of CVRP Consumers

CVRP rebate recipients

(CVRP 2012‒2015)

New-vehicle “intenders” (CHTS 2012)

CA residents (Census 2014)

40–59 years old 55% 52% 27% Bachelor’s

Postgraduate 83% 49%

66% 34%

31% 11%

Male 75% 49% 50% White/Caucasian 64% 76% 62% Detached homes 83% 75% 66%

$50‒200k/y household income

61% 58% 51%

Weighted CHTS data

Removing Clean Vehicle Rebates: Insight from British Columbia

Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program

Dealer Incentives: VT & CT

Drive Electric Vermont Case Study Fred Wagner, et al., Idaho National Laboratory

Charging infrastructure locations in

Vermont.

Monthly Vermont PEV

registrations.

Wagner, F., Roberts, D., Francfort, J., & White, S. (2016). Drive Electric Vermont Case Study. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID.

Drive Electric Vermont

• Four components

– Strategic planning/leadership

– Stakeholder/partnership development

– Education and outreach

– Incentives

• Point-of-sale rebate

– $500 for customer

– $200 for dealer

– Total of 76 vouchers distributed to dealerships

Drive Electric Vermont Dealer Incentive

• 11 of 100 dealerships in Vermont participated

• Incentives not used by a particular time were redistributed to more active dealerships

• Dealer participation voluntary, due to the sometimes high costs associated automaker requirements for selling PEVs

Critical Factors for Success: • High-Level State Buy-in • Central Hub and Point of

Contact • Early and Broad

Stakeholder Involvement • Tracking PEV Registrations • Car Dealerships • Utilities • Incentives and Grants • Outreach and Education • Vermont Clean Cities • Vermont Culture and

Climate Factors

Wagner, F., Roberts, D., Francfort, J., & White, S. (2016). Drive Electric Vermont Case Study. Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Falls, ID.

Dealer Incentive and Rebate Transfer Insight from the CHEAPR Program (CT)

Rebate Assignment by Make

Rebate Assignment by Dealership Rebate Volume