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
2
Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE)
Building Performance
Clean Transportation
Distributed Generation
Energy Efficiency
Energy Storage
Renewable Energy
3
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
4
• Design • Implementation
Practices & Lessons • Impact & Analysis • Concluding Remarks
Outline: EV Incentive Programs: CA, MA & CT
5
Program Design CVRP (CA), MOR-EV (MA), and CHEAPR (CT)
6
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)
7
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
$900
$900
$5,000
$2,500
$2,500 (>10kWh)
$1,500
$750
$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:
$300
8
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
Check
9
Implementation and Lessons Learned
10
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
11
Step 1: Education & Outreach Increase awareness of products, benefits, and incentives
12
Outreach & Education: Consumers
• Community and industry events
– Branded booth and marketing materials
• Program hotline, live support staff, and website
13
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.
14
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.
15
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
16
Step 2: Program Portal Inform, provide confidence, simplify application, and automate processing
17
Rebate Processing
cleanvehiclerebate.org mor-ev.org ct.gov/deep/cheapr
18 www.ct.gov/deep/CHEAPR
Increase Confidence
19
Available Funding: Transparency is Key
• Updated in real-time, accessible by dealers and consumers
• Maximize consumer and industry confidence
• Avoid market disruption
20
Simplify and Automate Application
www.ct.gov/deep/CHEAPR
21
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
22
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
23
Supporting Documents
Submit documents via email (MA and CT) or online (CA)
Purchase/Lease Agreement
Proof of Residency and Registration
24
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
26
Program Statistics
27
Rebate Distribution Map by Zip
28
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
29
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
30
(zevfacts.com)
zevfacts.com
31
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
32
Rebate Influence & Impact
33
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%
34
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%
35
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.
36
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
37
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
38
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)
39
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
79%
47%
0% 30% 60% 90%
Rebate Assigned toDealership
Rebate claimed directlyby consumer
Would not have purchased without CHEAPR
49%
51%
California
46%
54%
Massachusetts
68%
32%
Connecticut
Glass half full:
Rebates effectively more than doubling the EVs on the roads
41
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Q12013
Q22013
Q32013
Q42013
Q12014
Q22014
Q32014
Q42014
Q12015
Q22015
Would you have purchased or leased your vehicle without the state vehicle (CVRP) rebate?
No
Yes
CVRP Influence on Purchase/Lease is Increasing
42
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
Other
Primary Purchase Motivations: Diverse Consumers
San
Ber
nar
din
o/R
iver
sid
e
BEV
Lea
ses
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
Other
Mar
in T
esla
Pu
rch
ases
Total Responses: 103 Overall Time Frame: 11/9/2012–9/12/2015
43
Rebate Influence Importance of the rebate in making it
possible to acquire a PEV.
All <$60k MSRP >$60k MSRP
44
Rebate Influence
Importance of the rebate in making it
possible to acquire a PEV.
All <$60k MSRP >$60k MSRP
45
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
46
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
47
Concluding Remarks
48
(zevfacts.com)
49
Meeting a Goal of 3,200 New Sales by 2018
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Cu
mu
lati
ve N
ew
Sal
es
Planned unincentivized
Planned incentivized
Estimated historical
50
10-State Aggressive EV Goals
(image from zevfacts.com)
51
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? [email protected]
53
Extra Slides
54
Who is participating? Rebated Consumers
55
Rebated Consumer Characteristics
Age
Housing
Education
Gender
Total Responses: 25,217 Overall Time Frame: 9/1/2012–11/15/2015
56
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
57
Removing Clean Vehicle Rebates: Insight from British Columbia
58
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
59
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
60
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
61
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
62
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
63
Klippenstein: British Columbia’s Rebate Program
Klippenstein, M. (2016). Cash on the Hood: the B.C. Experience. Presentation at EV Roadmap 9, Portland, OR.
64
Dealer Incentives: VT & CT
65
Drive Electric Vermont Case Study Fred Wagner, et al., Idaho National Laboratory
66
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.
67
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
68
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
69
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.
70
Dealer Incentive and Rebate Transfer Insight from the CHEAPR Program (CT)
71
Rebate Assignment by Make
72
Rebate Assignment by Dealership Rebate Volume
