Generation 0 Vehicles.

Generation 0 Vehicles.

Generatio

n 3 HEVs

2014

Early core market:6-15% of market

Generation 2 HEVs

2010

Fast followers: 3-5% of market Fast followers: 3-5% of market

Generation 1 HEVs

1996 (Japan) 2004Early market:1-2%

HEV market developed in 3 phases:

Japan: 3rd generation HEV sales reached 19% in 2012,

Prius is best selling vehicle 4 years in row

California: 3rd generation HEV sales reached 7-8% 2012, Prius best selling vehicle in CA in 2012 (60,000)

USA: 3rd generation HEV sales 3-4%,2012 = 434,645

2

USA: How are we doing so far with PEVs?

)US HEVs

(2 yrs from launch

US HEVs (2 yrs from

launch

4

USA sales 1st gen PHEVs: 9 quarters 2011-13

5

USA sales 1st gen BEVs; 9 quarters 2011-13

6

PEV market: glass half empty or half full?

• Stated annual USA PEV sales goals of car makers– Volt goals 45,000 - actual 2012 sales 23,500– Leaf goals 20,000 - actual 2012 sales 9,819

• Climate & energy independence goals – California - 1.5 million ZEVs by 2025 (5% of CA fleet) – USA: Obama - 1 million PEVs by 2015 (.3 % of USA

fleet)– Germany, France – 1 million EVs by 2020

7

Size of potential PEV market in California • 1991-95, 4 year, 4 step UCD study:

– A detailed project based on values, resources, vehicle purchase habits & travel needs of 600 CA households

– Main assumptions:• Hybrid household hypothesis: 2 vehicles: 1 BEV & 1• 80-120 miles of BEV range, PHEV 20 & 40• PEVs in midsize to compact sedans, priced close to ICE, • Competition from gasoline, CNG, diesel • no FCVs, no HEVs• Gasoline was $1.50, middle of SUV market growth

• BEVs: 15% of California annual sales• PHEVs: not as well understood, potentially larger

depending on prices…• CNGs: less than 5%

Wuppertal

Household Resources: A Small Percentage of Californians are Responsible for Most New Car

Purchases

8

(about 33% of the new vehicles sold.)

(In the last five years)

(about 67% of the new vehicles sold.)

Based on the CA sample of the NHTS 2009

Regulation: California Air Resources Board ZEV Program

Other states “adopting” CA rules: Oregon, Washington, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island

9

Governor’s Executive Order 2013

Current PEV price comparison

Vehicle Model MSRP

Purchase Price after Federal Tax

CreditLease Price per

Month

Chevrolet Volt $39,145 + $31,645 $299/mo

Nissan Leaf $28,800 - 34,800 $21,300 $200/mo

Prius PHEV $32,800 - 39,500 $30,300 $269 - $459

HEV Prius $24,000 $24,000  

Toyota RAV4 EV $49,800 $42,300  

Tesla Model S $67,000 $59,500 $500-600/mo

22/04/23

11

PEV Incentives

USA California

Tax credits $400 per kWh / 200,000 per manufacturer$2500 for Toyota Prius$7500 for Leaf$7500 for Volt

$2500 rebate

Registration NA

Roads HOV lanes

Electricity Time of Use and free electricity at many public & workplace chargers

12

Market trends in California for PEVs• USA:

– 250 million LDV vehicles– About 15 million vehicles sold per year

• California: – 23 million light duty vehicles total,– About 1.5 million vehicles sold per year (10% of

USA)• California PEV trends:

– More than 25,000 PEVs bought since 2010

– 45% of PEVs are BEVs vs. 34% in the US market. – PEV Sales last quarter of 2012:

• 2.5% of cars (1 in 40) (not including 138,000 trucks) 6,000 out of 232,512 cars sold in California

Wuppertal

Social context: PEVs sales in California are mostly in coastal communities 2010-2012

13

Regionalization of salesCalifornia coastal cities, Portland, Seattle, Washington, California Incentives: $2500 for ZEV & Advanced Technology (Volt), Allowed to drive in high occupant vehicle lanes (HOV)

Wuppertal

BEVs are in the core areas & PHEVs are in the suburbs (so far)

BEV to PHEV ratio

14

2007 UCD survey: 53% of US new car buyers have a 110 plug within 25 ft. of where they park at night

Data from Axsen and Kurani, 2008

15

16

Those with detached houses & garages were more likely to have home recharge potential

Data from Axsen and Kurani, 2008

17

California PEV Household Characteristics 2012

• 95% of the vehicles are owned by private individuals, 4% by businesses & 1% by government & NGOs

• 83% have yearly income higher than $100K – 46% incomes is higher than $150K – 16% decline to state.• 96% live in single family dwelling• 96% own their house– 1% rent in San Diego study– 5% rent in other areas • 42% have solar panels– 18% consider installation– 40% have no plan to install • Mostly men, middle age, but shifting

18

Household Fleet Changes With the New BEV

Wuppertal

Understanding the Additional Vehicles

19

Hybrids May Serve as a Gateway to Plug-ins but they are not replaced by the Leaf

Wuppertal

Sales are often clustered, with surprising density in some neighborhoods

21

22

BMW chose us to work with them on their MINI-E experiment in 2009-10, so we got to do some BEV

anthropology

• 1-year lease at $850/mo. + tax

• In-home charging stations (no public charging)

• Out of 550 MINI Es worldwide, 450 in US

PHEV center surveyed over 150 MINI E drivers & interviewed 39 households during the year

MINI E owners learn a lot about electricity, more than they knew about gasoline

• How far can I drive on a kWh?• Understanding of costs, efficiency• Regenerative braking new• Driving style and feeling for energy use

24

Most liked the MINI E & while it was impractical for some trips, drivers engaged in

developing their own EV Territory

• EV driving zone• Quiet driving

experience• Charging locations• BEV community• Geography of BEVs

(distances, uphills, downhills, routes)

• Technology for this zone (GIS systems) 25

MINI E drivers were most enthusiastic about the intersection of clean & fun

• Strong value intersection for buyers

• MINI E was quiet, smooth, easy to drive, fast

• Electric vehicle has special place in public values

26

New vehicle introduction takes time…

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

Alt

ern

ativ

e V

ehic

le (

% o

f al

l L

DV

s) .

New vehicle sales

Total market penetration

Early

Comm

ercia

lizat

ion

Pre-C

omm

ercia

l

Sales

Proto

type D

emonstra

tion &

Product D

evelopm

ent

Researc

h &

Develo

pment (

R&D)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

Alt

ern

ativ

e V

ehic

le (

% o

f al

l L

DV

s) .

New vehicle sales

Total market penetration

Early

Comm

ercia

lizat

ion

Pre-C

omm

ercia

l

Sales

Proto

type D

emonstra

tion &

Product D

evelopm

ent

Researc

h &

Develo

pment (

R&D)

Generation 1 PEVs Generation 2 PEVs Generatio

n 3 PEVs

2010 202220182014

1-2% of market Fast followers: 3-5% of market Fast followers: 3-5% of market

Early core market:6-15% of market

PEVs (BEVs & PHEVs) market development

1st generation PEVs: partial conversions, loss leaders, ¼ scale production (less than 100,000 annual)

1st buyers (pioneers): High income, future focus, educated, willing to take risks.

Very regionalized: coastal Calif, Japan, Oslo, Portland Oregon: tech industries, regulations, high incentives

Charging system: home based, minimal public charging in non-optimal locations,

28

Generation 1 PEVs

Generation 2 PEVs Generatio

n 3 PEVs

2010 202220182014Early buyers 1-2%

3-5% of market 3-5% of market Early core market:6-15% of market

2nd generation PEVs market development

Generation 2 PEVs: purchases simplified, mass production, improved performance, dedicated platforms,

Fast followers: high income, still “future” focused, tech followers but social leaders in networks of first buyers

Market: intensifies in same regions

Charging system: simpler & optimized

29

Designing an optimal charger network

30

Charging surveys: What constraints do they face and what do they want?

Charging models: What do we think they want & need?(Home, workplace, public, DC fast network design tools)

Data acquisition: What, where & when do they charge?(need to monitor charge use- disaggregated through vehicle systems)

(also issues of etiquette, social practice)

Drs. Michael Nicholas, Gil TalJustin Woodjack 31

Charge network design & rollout? Location, type, density, redundancy

Wuppertal

Point of Diminishing Returns Reached at 200 DC Fast Charge Locations

-model created with 1 day record for 30,000 California drivers

Survey Results (What do people want?)More than 1000 Leaf household responses

• Charging is needed (regional systems)– 80% of drivers went to “1 bar” 8%– 40% of drivers exceeded “home-based” range– 7% would need charging to return from work

• Charging is used– 30% charge out of home regularly– Level 1 is used more than level 2 at work (53%)– Level 2 is used more than level 1 elsewhere (78%)

• Charging is wanted– 65% of Leaf owners suggested charger locations,

mostly DC QC– Median distance home-QC was 44 miles (71 km)

Wuppertal

Survey: Where do People Want Chargers?

34

Charger Choices in San Diego

Charger Choices in San Diego

Charger Choices in San Diego

Charger Choices in San Diego

Charger Choices in San Diego

Given Only 5 Choices, Priority is Home Area

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

Wuppertal

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

4.8%0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Work 1.2kW (L1)

4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

4.8%1.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

Wuppertal

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

• L1 Work Charging is sufficient for ~5%

• L2 Work Charging is needed for ~2% 4.8%

1.5%0.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)4.8%

1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

• L1 Work Charging is sufficient for ~5%

• L2 Work Charging is needed for ~2% 4.8%

1.5%0.7%

4.2%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

• L1 Work Charging is sufficient for ~5%

• L2 Work Charging is needed for ~2% 4.8%

1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh. = 59%– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

• L1 Work Charging is sufficient for ~5%

• L2 Work Charging is needed for ~2%

• QC accommodates up to 10% additional

4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)

What Return do we Get for Infrastructure Investment? (VMT/GHG)

• Home Charging VMT– 60 Mile Veh.= 59%

– 80 Mile Veh. = 71%– 100 Mile Veh. = 79%

• L1 Work Charging is sufficient for ~5%

• L2 Work Charging is needed for ~2%

• QC accommodates up to an additional 10% EV miles

4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)4.8%1.5%0.7%

4.2%

5.9%

5.7%

3.7%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al V

MT

% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC

Unserved

3 or More Fast Charge Events2 Fast Charge Events

1 Fast Charge Event

Public 6.6kW (L2)

Work 6.6kW (L2)

Work 3.3kW (L2)

Work 1.2kW (L1)