emerging international best practices to promote electric vehicles · 2016-04-19 · emerging...
TRANSCRIPT
Emerging international best practices to promote electric vehicles
Nic Lutsey
AVERE E-mobility Conference Amsterdam, NetherlandsApril 13, 2016
§ Sales of electric vehicles through 2015§ There were over 500,000 electric vehicle sales in 2015§ The 1 millionth electric vehicle was sold in September 2015§ Sales mostly in China, Europe, the U.S. (and concentrated in particular markets)
Global electric vehicle sales since 2009
2
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Elec
tric
veh
icle
sal
es
Rest of world
US
Japan
Europe
China
Note: Only passenger vehicles shown
United StatesCity-level analysis of EV policy, incentives, charging infrastructure
§ The top-25 metropolitan areas in 2014 in the US represent…. § 42% of the population, 46% of auto sales, 67% of EV sales§ 53% of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure§ Diverse mix of incentive, market factors, and percent EV uptake
Electric vehicle (EV) activity across major US cities
424.6%
29.6%
34.6%
39.6%
44.6%
49.6%
73.0%78.0%83.0%88.0%93.0%98.0%103.0%108.0%113.0%118.0%123.0%
0.5%
1%
3%
Share of new vehicles
BEV PHEV
http://theicct.org/info-tools/us-city-electric-vehicle-profilesEV shares are new PHEVs and BEVs, as percent of light-duty vehicle registrations, in 2014 from IHS Automotive
San Francisco
Portland
Seattle
Denver
Phoenix
Los Angeles Riverside
Minneapolis
Chicago
St Louis
Houston
Dallas
San Antonio
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Charlotte
WashingtonBaltimore
New York
BostonDetroit
Pittsburgh
San Diego
Philadelphia
$0 $2,000 $4,000San Francisco
AtlantaLos Angeles
San DiegoSeattle
PortlandRiverside
DetroitPhoenix
WashingtonDenverTampaMiami
BostonNew YorkBaltimore
DallasChicago
PhiladelphiaSt. Louis
MinneapolisCharlotteHouston
PittsburghSan Antonio
25 city average
Consumer incentive
Other
Public chargingHOV accessState subsidy
Analysis of US city EV uptake, charging, promotion activities
5
§ Example: San Francisco area has had steady mix of consumer incentives, promotion actions, and charging infrastructure support – and has 7x the US average EV uptake
0%! 2%! 4%! 6%!
San Francisco!Atlanta!
Los Angeles!San Diego!
Seattle!Portland!
Riverside!Detroit!
Phoenix!Washington!
Denver!Tampa!Miami!
Boston!New York!Baltimore!
Dallas!Chicago!
Philadelphia!St. Louis!
Minneapolis!Charlotte!Houston!
Pittsburgh!San Antonio!
New electric !vehicle share!
Battery electric vehicles!
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles!
0! 100! 200! 300!
San Francisco!Atlanta!
Los Angeles!San Diego!
Seattle!Portland!
Riverside!Detroit!
Phoenix!Washington!
Denver!Tampa!Miami!
Boston!New York!Baltimore!
Dallas!Chicago!
Philadelphia!St. Louis!
Minneapolis!Charlotte!Houston!
Pittsburgh!San Antonio!
Chargers per capita !(per million population)!
DC fast!Level 2!
0! 10! 20!
San Francisco!Atlanta!
Los Angeles!San Diego!
Seattle!Portland!
Riverside!Detroit!
Phoenix!Washington!
Denver!Tampa!Miami!
Boston!New York!Baltimore!
Dallas!Chicago!
Philadelphia!St. Louis!
Minneapolis!Charlotte!Houston!
Pittsburgh!San Antonio!
Electric vehicle !promotion actions!
State!City!Infrastructure!Utility!
http://theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-vehicle-activities
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!
San
Fran
cisco!
Los A
ngel
es!
San
Dieg
o!Ri
vers
ide!
Was
hing
ton
DC!
Portl
and!
Char
lotte!
Atla
nta!
Chica
go!
New
York
City!
Phila
delp
hia!
Seat
tle!
Denv
er!
Bost
on!
St. L
ouis!
Baltim
ore!
Hous
ton!
Phoe
nix!
Dalla
s!De
troit!
Tam
pa!
Mia
mi!
San
Anto
nio!
Min
neap
olis!
Pitts
burg
h!Av
erag
e 25
citie
s!
Elec
tric
veh
icle
pro
mot
ion
actio
ns!
Utility!
Infrastructure!
City!
State!
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!
San
Fran
cisco!
Los A
ngel
es!
San
Dieg
o!Ri
vers
ide!
Was
hing
ton
DC!
Portl
and!
Char
lotte!
Atla
nta!
Chica
go!
New
York
City!
Phila
delp
hia!
Seat
tle!
Denv
er!
Bost
on!
St. L
ouis!
Baltim
ore!
Hous
ton!
Phoe
nix!
Dalla
s!De
troit!
Tam
pa!
Mia
mi!
San
Anto
nio!
Min
neap
olis!
Pitts
burg
h!Av
erag
e 25
citie
s!
Elec
tric
veh
icle
pro
mot
ion
actio
ns!
Utility!
Infrastructure!
City!
State!
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!Sa
n Fr
ancis
co!
Los A
ngel
es!
San
Dieg
o!Ri
vers
ide!
Was
hing
ton
DC!
Portl
and!
Char
lotte!
Atla
nta!
Chica
go!
New
York
City!
Phila
delp
hia!
Seat
tle!
Denv
er!
Bost
on!
St. L
ouis!
Baltim
ore!
Hous
ton!
Phoe
nix!
Dalla
s!De
troit!
Tam
pa!
Mia
mi!
San
Anto
nio!
Min
neap
olis!
Pitts
burg
h!Av
erag
e 25
citie
s!
Elec
tric
veh
icle
pro
mot
ion
actio
ns!
Utility!
Infrastructure!
City!
State!
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!
San
Fran
cisco!
Los A
ngel
es!
San
Dieg
o!Ri
vers
ide!
Was
hing
ton
DC!
Portl
and!
Char
lotte!
Atla
nta!
Chica
go!
New
York
City!
Phila
delp
hia!
Seat
tle!
Denv
er!
Bost
on!
St. L
ouis!
Baltim
ore!
Hous
ton!
Phoe
nix!
Dalla
s!De
troit!
Tam
pa!
Mia
mi!
San
Anto
nio!
Min
neap
olis!
Pitts
burg
h!Av
erag
e 25
citie
s!
Elec
tric
veh
icle
pro
mot
ion
actio
ns!
Utility!
Infrastructure!
City!
State!
Actions to promote EVs across US cities
6
Preferential charging rate Home charger support Website, inform. materials Cost comparison toolOther utility outreach
EV supply equipment financing City-owned EV chargers US DOE EV Project area Streamlined EVSE permit process PEV-ready building code Workplace charging
Vehicle purchase support Parking supportFleet purchasing Carpool lane (HOV) access Car sharing program link Electric vehicle strategy Website or inform. materials Outreach or education events
ZEV program BEV purchase subsidy PHEV purchase subsidy Fee exemption or exemption Home charger support Public charging supportParking benefit Fleet purchasing incentive Manufacturing incentives Low carbon fuel policy
0!
5!
10!
15!
20!
25!
San
Fran
cisco!
Los A
ngel
es!
San
Dieg
o!Ri
vers
ide!
Was
hing
ton!
Portl
and!
Char
lotte!
New
York!
Phila
delp
hia!
Atla
nta!
Chica
go!
Bost
on!
Denv
er!
Seat
tle!
Hous
ton!
St. L
ouis!
Baltim
ore!
Dalla
s!Ph
oeni
x!Sa
n An
toni
o!De
troit!
Tam
pa!
Mia
mi!
Min
neap
olis!
Pitts
burg
h!Av
erag
e 25
citie
s!Elec
tric
veh
icle
pro
mot
ion
actio
ns!
Utility!
Infrastructure!
City!
State!
http://theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-vehicle-activities
Europe Region analysis of electric vehicle policy and uptake
Europe electric vehicle policy and deployment comparison
§ Analysis of five European countries, two case study regions in each
8Tietge et al (2016). Comparison of leading electric vehicle policy and deployment in Europe. International Council on Clean Transportation (forthcoming)
EV incentives, charging availability, new vehicle share
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
0% 20% 40% 60%Fiscal incentive for an EV as a percentage of theprice (incl. taxes) of a comparable gasoline car
Chargingpo
intsper1
,000
registered
cars Country
DEFRNLNOUK
EV newcar share
5%10%
15%
20%
Bergen
GermanyUKFrance
Netherlands
Norway
Berlin
Stuttgart
LondonGlasgow
Paris
Poitou-Charentes
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Oslo
0
1
2
3
4
5
0% 20% 40% 60%Fiscal incentive for an EV as a percentage of theprice (incl. taxes) of a comparable gasoline car
Chargingpo
intsper1
,000
registered
cars Country
DEFRNLNOUK
EV newcar share
5%10%
15%
20%
Bergen
GermanyUKFrance
Netherlands
Norway
Berlin
Stuttgart
LondonGlasgow
Paris
Poitou-Charentes
Amsterdam
Utrecht
Oslo
Bergen (20%)
Germany (0.4%)UK (0.6%) France (0.7%)
Netherlands (3.9%)
Norway (13.7%)
Berlin (0.3%)
Stuttgart (0.5%)
London (0.9%)
Glasgow (0.6%)
Paris (1.1%)
Poitou-Charentes (0.5%)
Amsterdam (4.1%)
Utrecht (5%)
Oslo (20%)
0
1
2
3
4
5
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%EV incentive as percent of average baseline vehicle price
Chargingpo
intsper1
,000
registered
cars
CountryDEFRNLNOUK
EV newcar share
1%5%
10%
15%
20%
Tietge et al (2016). Comparison of leading electric vehicle policy and deployment in Europe. International Council on Clean Transportation (forthcoming)
International Electric vehicle incentive design, collaboration
Market
Electric vehicle uptake Incentive design principles
Subs
tant
ial
BEV
Subs
tant
ial
PHEV
Upf
ront
Leas
e
Com
pany
Priv
ate
Dur
able
Sim
ple
California X X / X X X X X
Japan X X / X X X X /
Norway X X X X X X X /
Netherlands X X / X X / / /
United Kingdom X X X X X / X X
France / X X X X X / /
Beijing X / X X X X / X
Sweden / / / X X X / X
Washington X X X X X X X /
Denmark X X X X / X / /
Electric vehicle sales
Electric vehicle share
§ Markets with highest EV sales and EV shares have generally adopted most of the principles for effective incentive design
Effective EV incentive design
11Notes: “X” denotes principle is generally met; “/” denotes principle partially metSource: Yang, et al (2016). Principles for effective electric vehicle incentive design. ICCT (forthcoming)
§ Findings on analysis of electric vehicle incentives§ Electric vehicle sales (circle size) and 2014 shares (vertical axis), and relative cost of electric
vehicle as compared to conventional vehicles after incentives (horizontal axis)
§ Financial incentives matter, but so do many other factors
EV uptake higher where incentives higher (generally)
12Notes: Electric vehicle sales and shares are 2014 new passenger vehiclesSource: Yang, et al (2016). Principles for effective electric vehicle incentive design. ICCT (forthcoming)
13%
14%
-50% 0% 50%
Norway
Annual electric vehicle sales
5,000 10,000 50,000
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
-50% 0% 50%
Elec
tric
veh
icle
sha
re o
f ne
w v
ehic
le s
ales
Electric vehicle cost compared to conventional vehicles (including retail price, incentives, taxes, fees)
CaliforniaShanghai
Netherlands
Beijing
GermanyJapan
Washington
France
Sweden
Denmark
UK
Oregon
2014 electric vehicle sales
§ Collaborate on best-practice policies, action plans § Set electric-drive vehicle target: All electric by 2050
§ To achieve climate stabilization goals§ To set clear signal for policy and investment
Collaboration: International ZEV Alliance
13
- British Columbia- California- Connecticut- Germany- Maryland- Massachusetts- Netherlands- New York- Norway- Oregon- Québec- Rhode Island- United Kingdom- Vermont
International ZEV Alliance: http://zevalliance.orgCOP21 announcement: http://zevalliance.org/content/cop21-2050-announcementMitigation potential: http://zevalliance.org/content/global-ev-2050-ghg-mitigation-potential
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Ligh
t-dut
y ve
hicl
e sa
les
shar
e
Non electric-drive
Plug-in hybrid electric
Battery electric
Hydrogen fuel cell
Conclusions
§ EV promotion actions are accelerating EV adoption§ United States: Incentives, charging, model availability, city non-monetary benefits§ Europe: Incentives, charging infrastructure, complementary local action, etc§ International: Incentives, and incentive design, matter
§ Analysis confirms importance of “ecosystem approach”§ Public charging and consumer incentives work, but more diverse action needed§ Cities, states, utilities, automakers, consumers, local businesses all have roles
§ International collaboration is also important§ Continued learning on best practice policies
14
§ ICCT resources§ Electric vehicle page:
§ http://www.theicct.org/electric-vehicles
§ US city/state electric vehicle incentive analysis§ http://theicct.org/info-tools/us-city-electric-vehicle-profiles (Dec 2015)§ http://theicct.org/leading-us-city-electric-vehicle-activities (July 2015)§ http://theicct.org/supporting-electric-vehicles-US-city-total-cost (October 2015)§ http://theicct.org/evaluation-state-level-us-electric-vehicle-incentives (Oct 2014)
§ International electric vehicle sales and incentives§ http://theicct.org/global-ev-2050-ghg-mitigation-potential (Dec 2015)§ http://theicct.org/transition-global-zero-emission-vehicle-fleet-collaborative-agenda-governments (Sept 2015)§ http://theicct.org/driving-electrification-global-comparison-fiscal-policy-electric-vehicles (May 2014)
§ International Zero Emission Vehicle Alliance§ http://zevalliance.org § http://zevalliance.org/content/cop21-2050-announcement
15