The PEV market:
trends, challenges & opportunities
Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center:
phev.ucdavis.edu
Generation 0
www.WorldEVCities.org
Vehicles.
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
Early core market:
6-15% of market
Early market:1-2%
1996 (Japan)
2004
Fast followers:
3-5% of market
2010
2014
2
USA: How are we doing so far with PEVs?
)
US HEVs
(2 yrs from
launch
USA sales 1st gen PHEVs: 9 quarters 2011-13
16,000
Accord PHEV
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
Fusion PHEV
C-MAX Energi
Prius +
Volt
4,000
2,000
0
Q1 11
Q2 11
Q3 11
Q4 11
Q1 12
Q2 12
Q3 12
Q4 12
Q1 13
4
USA sales 1st gen BEVs; 9 quarters 2011-13
12,000
10,000
8,000
Fit E
Rav4 EV
Focus E
Active E
iMiEV
Smart ED
Model S
Leaf
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Q1 11
Q2 11
Q3 11
Q4 11
Q1 12
Q2 12
Q3 12
Q4 12
5
Q1 13
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
6
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:
• PHEVs:
• CNGs:
15% of California annual sales
not as well understood, potentially larger
depending on prices…
less than 5%
7
Household Resources: A Small Percentage of
Californians are Responsible for Most New Car
Purchases
Based on the CA sample
of the NHTS 2009
6% purchased 2+
new vehicles
(about 33% of the new vehicles
sold.)
13% of the PEV HH
28% purchased 1 new
vehicle
(about 67% of the new vehicles sold.)
36% of the PEV HH
66% of the households didn’t
(In the last five years)
purchase a new car
52% of the PEV HH
Wuppertal
8
Regulation: California Air Resources Board ZEV Program
Governor’s Executive Order 2013
Other states “adopting” CA rules: Oregon, Washington, Delaware,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Maine, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island
9
Current PEV price comparison
MSRP
Purchase Price
after Federal Tax
Credit
Lease Price per
Month
$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
Vehicle Model
Chevrolet Volt
$500-600/mo
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
08/04/2015
11
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
12
Social context: PEVs sales in California are
mostly in coastal communities 2010-2012
Regionalization of sales
California coastal cities,
Portland, Seattle,
Washington,
California Incentives:
$2500 for ZEV & Advanced
Technology (Volt),
Allowed to drive in high
occupant vehicle lanes
(HOV)
Wuppertal
13
BEVs are in the core areas & PHEVs
are in the suburbs (so far)
BEV to PHEV ratio
Wuppertal
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
Those with detached houses & garages were
more likely to have home recharge potential
Data from Axsen and Kurani, 2008
16
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
17
Household Fleet Changes With the New BEV
18
Understanding the Additional Vehicles
19
Wuppertal
Hybrids May Serve as a Gateway to Plug-ins but they
are not replaced by the Leaf
Sales are often clustered, with surprising
density in some neighborhoods
21
Wuppertal
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…
100%
Alternative Vehicle (% of all LDVs).
90%
80%
New vehicle
sales
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
on
&
Total market
penetration
ti
a
r
st nt
al
)
n
i
e
c
o
&D
on
m pm
er
i
e
t
R
a
D elo mm
& t(
iz
e
n
l
h
v
o
ia
rc me
yp De
-C
c
t
a
r
e
t
p
o
se lo
Pr ales arly me
ot duc
e
r
e
R ev
P ro
E om
S
D
P
C
10%
0%
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Year
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
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,
Generation 1 PEVs
1-2% of market
2010
Early core market:
6-15% of market
Fast followers:
3-5% of market
2014
2018
2022
28
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
Generation 2 PEVs
3-5% of market
Early core market:
6-15% of market
2010
Early buyers 12%
2014
2018
2022
29
Designing an optimal charger network
30
Charge network design & rollout?
Location, type, density, redundancy
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 Tal
31
Justin Woodjack
Point of Diminishing Returns Reached at 200 DC
Fast Charge Locations
-model created with 1 day record for 30,000
California drivers
Wuppertal
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)
Survey: Where do People Want Chargers?
Wuppertal
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%
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
 Home Charging
VMT
35.0%
Unserved
30.0%
25.0%
3.7%
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
1 Fast Charge Event
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
– 80 Mile Veh. =
71%
– 100 Mile Veh. =
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
5.9%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
10.0%
5.0%
Work 1.2kW (L1)
Public 6.6kW (L2)
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
4.8%
Work 1.2kW (L1)
0.0%
Wuppertal
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
• Home Charging
VMT
35.0%
Unserved
30.0%
25.0%
3.7%
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
Work 3.3kW (L2)
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
1 Fast Charge Event
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
– 80 Mile Veh. =
71%
– 100 Mile Veh. =
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
5.9%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
10.0%
5.0%
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
4.8%
0.0%
Public 6.6kW (L2)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
 Home Charging
VMT
• L2 Work Charging
is needed for ~2%
35.0%
Unserved
30.0%
25.0%
3.7%
3 orWork
More
Fast Charge
6.6kW
(L2)
Events
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
1 Fast Charge Event
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
– 80
Mile Charging
Veh. =
• L1
Work
71%
is sufficient for
– 100 Mile Veh. =
~5%
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
5.9%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
10.0%
5.0%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Public 6.6kW (L2)
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
4.8%
0.0%
Wuppertal
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
• Home Charging
VMT
• L2 Work Charging
is needed for ~2%
35.0%
Unserved
25.0%
3.7%
Public 6.6kW (L2)
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
1 Fast Charge Event
30.0%
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
80Work
Mile Veh.
=
• –L1
Charging
71%
is sufficient for
– 100 Mile Veh. =
~5%
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
5.9%
10.0%
5.0%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work 6.6kW (L2)
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
4.8%
0.0%
Public 6.6kW (L2)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
Work 1.2kW (L1)
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
• Home Charging
VMT
• L2 Work Charging
is needed for ~2%
35.0%
25.0%
3.7%
Unserved
1 Fast Charge Event
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
2Public
Fast Charge
6.6kWEvents
(L2)
20.0%
5.7%
1 Fast Charge Event
30.0%
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
80Work
Mile Veh.
=
• –L1
Charging
71%
is sufficient for
– 100 Mile Veh. =
~5%
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
5.9%
10.0%
5.0%
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work 3.3kW (L2)
4.8%
0.0%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
Public 6.6kW (L2)
Work1.2kW
1.2kW(L1)
(L1)
Work
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
• Home Charging
VMT
• L2 Work Charging
is needed for ~2%
• QC accommodates
up to 10%
additional
35.0%
25.0%
3.7%
Unserved
2 Fast Charge Events
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
1 Fast Charge Event
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
1Public
Fast Charge
6.6kWEvent
(L2)
5.9%
Public 6.6kW (L2)
Work 6.6kW (L2)
Work 6.6kW (L2)
30.0%
2.7%
Percent of Total VMT
– 60 Mile Veh. =
59%
80Work
Mile Veh.
=
• –L1
Charging
71%
is sufficient for
– 100 Mile Veh. =
~5%
79%
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
4.8%
0.0%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work 3.3kW (L2)
Work
Work1.2kW
1.2kW(L1)
(L1)
What Return do we Get for Infrastructure
Investment? (VMT/GHG)
• Home Charging
VMT
% of Statewide VMT Enabled by Ch. Type
80 Mile Range Vehicle, 200 QC
35.0%
– 60 Mile Veh.= 59%
Unserved
30.0%
25.0%
3.7%
3 or More Fast Charge
Events
2 Fast Charge Events
20.0%
5.7%
1 Fast Charge Event
• –L1
Charging
80Work
Mile Veh.
=
is71%
sufficient for
–~5%
100 Mile Veh. =
79%
• L2
Work Charging
is needed for ~2%
• QC accommodates
up to an additional
10% EV miles
Percent of Total VMT
2.7%
15.0%
5.9%
Work 6.6kW (L2)
10.0%
5.0%
4.2%
0.7%
1.5%
Work 3.3kW (L2)
4.8%
0.0%
Public 6.6kW (L2)
Work 1.2kW (L1)