Literature Review of U*S* Consumer
Acceptance of New Personally Owned
Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
BERKELEY LAB
-------
Literature Review of U*S* Consumer
Acceptance of New Personally Owned
Light Duty Plug-in Electric Vehicles
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using
data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments.
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and
Energy Technologies Area
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
NOTICE
4>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-23-900
January 2023
BERKELEY LAB
-------
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives, Scope, and Focus 1
1.2 Background 3
1.3 Defining a Framework for Consumer Acceptance of Light Duty Plug-In Electric Vehicles5
1.4 Synthesis in Brief 7
1.5 Organization of the Review 10
2 CONSUMERS 12
2.1 Consumer purchase process 12
2.2 Criteria: What Consumers Want from a Vehicle 14
2.2.1 Compensatory and non-compensatory decision rules 14
2.2.2 Objective and subjective criteria 15
2.2.3 Common consumer criteria for vehicle selection 15
2.3 Characteristics: Who Consumers Are 16
2.3.1 High-level summary of known characteristics that contribute to PEV acceptance 16
2.4 Consumer Segments 18
2.5 How Do Consumers Interact with Vehicles? 19
2.6 How Do Consumers Interact with Systems? 21
2.6.1 Market systems 21
2.6.2 Social systems 22
2.6.3 Physical systems 23
2.6.4 Government systems 24
3. AWARENESS 25
3.1 Measures & Metrics 26
3.2 State of Awareness 26
3.3 Enablers of Awareness 27
3.4 Obstacles to Awareness 29
4. ACCESS 30
4.1 Measures & Metrics 31
4.2 State of Access 31
4.3 Enablers of Access 35
4.4 Obstacles to Access 36
5. APPROVAL 38
5.1 Measures & Metrics 39
i
-------
5.2 State of Approval 39
5.3 Enablers of Approval 40
5.3.1 Alignment between Attributes and Criteria 41
5.3.2 Normalization of PEVs 43
5.4 Obstacles to Approval 44
6. ADOPTION 46
6.1 Measures & Metrics 46
6.2 State of Adoption 46
6.3 Enablers of Adoption 48
6.4 Obstacles to Adoption 50
7. SYNTHESIS 51
7.1 Synthesis of Awareness 52
7.2 Synthesis of Access 54
7.3 Synthesis of Approval 55
7.4 Synthesis of Adoption 57
7.5 Moving Forward 61
REFERENCES 63
Appendix A. data and method descriptions for cited literature 73
li
-------
Tables and Figures
Table 1. The four components (4-A's) constituting the organizing framework for consumer
acceptance of LD PEVs 7
Figure 1. Stages of consumer acceptance 5
Figure 2. Interactions among consumers with diverse characteristics, vehicles with myriad
attributes, and within a multitude of complex systems 8
Figure 3. Public charging and BEVs per 100,000 residents in the United States 24
Figure 4. PEV and EVSE incentives by state 34
Figure 5. Sales of electrified light-duty vehicles by powertrain (2014-2021) 42
Figure 6. Light-duty vehicles sold by fuel type, PHEV and EV 47
Figure 7. BEV and PHEV vehicle density by county (Source: https://maps.nrel.gov/transatlas) 47
Figure 8. Summary of state of acceptance and enablers (obstacles) 60
in
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives, Scope, and Focus
The primary objective of this review is to provide a current and comprehensive summary of the
scientific literature regarding consumer acceptance of light duty (LD) plug-in electric vehicles
(PEVs) among private U.S. consumers.1 The scope of this literature review includes
retrospective, prospective, empirical, and theoretical studies.2 However, we limit our scope to
recent (i.e., primarily 2016 and later), peer-reviewed,3 studies with relevance to the purchase
decisions of private U.S. light duty vehicle (LDV) consumers and to nearer-term time frames
(i.e., 2022 to 2035).4 We focus on what constitutes PEV acceptance, namely how it is defined,
elicited, observed, and/or measured; the multifaceted nature and current state of PEV acceptance
in the United States among private LDV consumers; and the attributes of individuals, vehicles,
and the systems (i.e., physical, social, and economic) that enable and stand in the way of PEV
acceptance. Another important objective is to develop an organizing framework that supports
actionable insights for a general audience.
In the course of this review, we considered more than 300 scientific studies within the
transportation literature, including those we cite. We identified studies for consideration via
search terms/key words (e.g., "battery," "plug-in", "electric", "vehicle", "car", "consumer",
"acceptance", "awareness", "access", "adoption", "purchase", "preferences", "attitudes",
"willingness-to-pay", "behavior", "policy", "incentive", "intervention") as well as variations and
logical combinations thereof (e.g., "plug-in electric vehicle", "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle",
"consumer acceptance", "policy interventions"). We also employed other conventional
approaches such as forward- and backward-looking citation networks and consultation with
colleagues and experts. Among those studies that served this part of our search are earlier works
by these authors related to the plug-in electric vehicle purchase process, namely Taylor and
Fujita (2018) and Fujita et al. (2022). Importantly, our search was extensive, but it was not
intended to be exhaustive. Our intent was to capture a clear and comprehensive picture of the
scientific literature within the scope described above (i.e., recent studies addressing U.S., private
use, new vehicle consumer acceptance of PHEVs and BEVs), not summarize all of the literature.
Thus, our substantial set of over 100 references reflects the scientific literature within the stated
scope and supports the review that follows. It does not discuss every study considered or
reviewed.
Furthermore, it is well-worth noting that much of the literature on PEV acceptance by U.S.
consumers is limited in geographic scope—specific to a locality, state, or region—and therefore
1 Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) always rely on electricity stored in a battery for fuel. Plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs) can operate either on electricity stored in a battery or gasoline (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2021b).
2 Though we touch on projections of future sales, fleet composition, and the like, we do not review fleet projection
models. A review of such models would be a significant endeavor in addition to the task we undertake here. Several
model reviews are available, including Yip et al. (2018), Muratori et al. (2020), and Taylor (2022).
3 Some exceptions to peer-reviewed criteria, such as working papers and reports of high quality, are included in this
review.
4 This literature is based on large and small scale; local, regional, and national studies; and stated and revealed
empirical data among other dichotomies. In the effort to preserve readability, this text does not detail the differences
in scale, geography, method, etc. for all of the information presented. Rather, we provide information that is
consistent across studies, therefore emphasizing where there appears to be consensus in the literature.
-------
may not be generalizable. Tracking those limitations within the subsequent text may have made
it more cumbersome than clear. Thus, we have sacrificed a full accounting of the time of data
collection, geographic scope, location, and sample size of studies cited in favor of readability.
Lastly, we engaged in a formal peer review process to ensure our objectives were met. The report
can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Inventory Publication
Number EPA-420-R-23-003.5
Regarding scope, we deemed some topics of considerable interest to be out of the scope of this
report for several carefully considered reasons. Most importantly, we needed to manage the scale
of this work. First, some topics are substantial in importance, content, or complexity that more
than sufficiently justify reports of their own. For example, topics related to disparities,
distribution of subsidies, and underserved populations touch on issues of equity, which given the
scientific literature on this topic and its importance, is deserving of more complete and nuanced
treatment than could be achieved in this literature review. Similarly, we acknowledge that the
literature on the design and effectiveness of policy interventions is rich. We nevertheless chose
to curtail the presentation of this literature since a comparative analysis of policy and policy
design warrants a technical assessment of policy attributes not indicated in our stated objectives.
This choice has the added benefit of a more expansive and perhaps more balanced presentation
of acceptance enablers than drilling down into policy particulars would allow. Likewise, we
acknowledge the importance of local level actions and dynamics as well as local level
heterogeneity, but we do not delve into local level topics to manage the scale of the report. In the
report, we do note the considerable efforts of other researchers in capturing local level
considerations and refer readers to those studies and reviews. Second, for some topics, the
literature was nascent, emerging, or relatively light. Current issues, such as supply constraints,
used PEV markets, and PEV repurchase, are currently being analyzed by many researchers.
Other issues of interest were absent or arguably received insufficient treatment in the literature.
Because our intent was to comprehensively present current findings of the scientific literature
regarding U.S. consumer acceptance of new light duty plug-in electric vehicles and to do so in a
cohesive and understandable manner, we leave it to our readers and other researchers to identify
gaps in the literature.
Thus, while important to the evolving understanding of the role of PEVs in transportation
behavior, the following topics, most of which were also noted by our reviewers, are out of the
scope of our current review with limited exceptions: (1) PEV acceptance studies related to non-
U.S. consumers, with exceptions for foundational works or in cases where U.S.-specific
information is limited; (2) publications before 2016 with the exception of foundational or unique
earlier publications; (3) PEV use except to the extent that experience influences acceptance; (4)
commercial purchase and use of PEVs, such as company fleets or transportation network
company (TNC) drivers; (5) studies that project or forecast future PEV sales or market shares;
(6) the used PEV market; (7) local level considerations, issues, complexity and/or heterogeneity;
and (8) equity considerations.
5 https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/
2
-------
1.2 Background
To reduce air pollutant emissions and improve air quality, zero or near-zero tailpipe emissions
can be achieved using current light duty vehicle technologies, which include plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles
(HFCVs). In fact, zero tailpipe and upstream emissions from vehicle use can be achieved when
electricity is generated via renewable or carbon-neutral sources. Among these three types of zero
emission vehicle technologies (ZEVs), PHEVs and BEVs appear to have the greatest near-term
potential for mass commercialization in LD markets.6
In the United States, annual sales of LD plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which includes PHEVs
and BEVs, has been low and geographically uneven, but sales are growing and expanding
geographically, despite pandemic-related shocks to the light duty vehicle market. New plug-in
electric vehicle sales represented 2.2% (1.7% BEV and 0.5% PHEV) of new light duty vehicle
sales in 2020 (Davis and Boundy 2021; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2021b). In 2020,
PEVs were concentrated on the West Coast and in the Northeast, in so-called "ZEV States,"7 and
in urban areas (e.g., AFDC 2021a; Le and Lindhardt 2019; Brown et al. 2021; Bui, Slowik, and
Lutsey 2020). PEV production in 2021 was projected to be 4% of new vehicles (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2021b). According to the Alliance for Automotive Innovation
(2022) actual annual PEV market share in 2021 was 4.62% (3.38% for BEVs and 1.24% for
PHEVs), and as of May 2022, actual PEV market share was 6.64% (5.21% for BEVs and 1.43%
for PHEVs). These outcomes occurred under arguably unfavorable conditions—namely,
relatively few PEV models were available, charging infrastructure was limited, and PEV
purchase prices were relatively high, all concurrent with economic shocks related to the COVID-
19 pandemic. Combined with recent announcements from vehicle manufacturers regarding
substantial planned expansion of PEV models and production, there is reason to believe that PEV
market share will continue to grow.
Nevertheless, there appears to be broad consensus in the scientific community that the
proliferation of PEVs in the U.S. LDV fleet is subject to a number of uncertainties, including a
combination of: advances in technology (e.g., vehicle range); production costs (e.g., battery
costs); vehicle purchase prices (e.g., financial incentives, diversity of vehicle price points);
further development of transportation infrastructure (e.g., charging infrastructure); vehicle model
offerings (e.g., body styles); geographic availability; and consumer acceptance of PEVs.
Much of the scientific literature regarding consumer acceptance of LD PEVs describes the
current state of consumer acceptance, the factors that influence consumer acceptance, and
progression of acceptance overtime (i.e., retrospective and empirical studies), all of which can
translate into recommended interventions and likely outcomes as well as projections of PEV
adoption and market share (i.e., prospective studies). The factors that influence consumer
6 We reiterate that our focus here in on individually owned vehicles. LD fuel cells may have more relevance in fleet
applications because they can be paired with company-managed hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
7 "So-called" ZEV states are states that have adopted California's zero-emission vehicle regulations under Section
177 of the Clean Air Act. As of March 17, 2022, ZEV states include Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington; Colorado is expected to join in 2023;
Minnesota, Nevada, and Virginia are expected to join in 2025; and Delaware is expected to join in 2027 (California
Air Resources Board 2022).
3
-------
acceptance are often framed as enablers and obstacles (sometimes referred to as "drivers" and
"barriers," respectively). Enablers and obstacles can be monetary and/or financial (e.g., tax
credit) or non-monetary and/or non-financial (e.g., high occupancy vehicle [HOV] lane access).8
Enablers and obstacles also highlight the advantages and disadvantages of PEVs relative to
conventional vehicles, as well as the imbalance in the knowledge and confidence of consumers
in conventional vehicles relative to PEVs. Enablers and obstacles relate to consumer
characteristics (e.g., knowledge, confidence, attitudes), vehicle attributes (e.g., safety, reliability)
and features (e.g., range, purchase price, cost of ownership), and system factors (e.g., fueling and
charging infrastructure, fuel and electricity prices, incentives and disincentives, social networks).
Despite the depth and breadth of this literature, consumer acceptance of LD PEVs has no
generally accepted definition and is measured numerous ways. For example, consumer
acceptance is demonstrated through the following:
• PEV sales and purchases (e.g., Jia and Chen 2021)
• PEV registrations (e.g., Kurani and Buch 2021)
• Stated and actual willingness to pay for PEVs (e.g., Nazari, Mohammadian, and Stephens
2019)
• Self-reported willingness to purchase or consider purchasing a PEV (e.g., Singer 2020)
• Availability of PEVs or of specific PEVs with desired attributes (e.g., Higgins,
Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017)
• Knowledge of and accuracy of knowledge about PEVs (e.g., Kurani 2019)
Most consumer acceptance studies examine one or more of the many measures of acceptance,
but not all. Most studies glean insights from an imperfect pool of research subjects who are
either early PEV adopters or non-adopters, neither of which are representative of mainstream
consumers who will make up the majority of PEV consumers under high levels of PEV
adoption.9 Definitions of consumer acceptance and of the many measures of acceptance vary
across existing research. Organizing the complexity of the problem, as well as the myriad of
results and recommendations, is a challenge in and of itself. Thus, we proceed by explicitly
defining an organizing framework, which is beneficial in that it aids in the discussion of locating
consumers along a continuum of acceptance and in the identification of key enablers and
obstacles.
8 While not explicitly monetary, the value to consumers of HOV access can be estimated (e.g., Shewmake and Jarvis
2014).
9 Notably, we have employed the language of the Diffusion of Innovations Theoiy, in which Rogers (2003) outlines
five different types of adopters. The first to adopt are innovators (first 2.5%), followed by early adopters (next
13.5%), early majority (next 34%), late majority (next 34%), and laggards (the last 16% to adopt). We discuss
innovators and early adopters as one category that we call "early adopters." We also group the early and late
majority into what we call the "mainstream." Furthermore, we focus on the first PEV purchase or lease, which we
call "adoption." We call second and later PEV purchases, "re-purchase" or "re-adoption," which we do not
emphasize in this review.
4
-------
1.3 Defining a Framework for Consumer Acceptance of Light Duty Plug-In Electric
Vehicles
In our review of the scientific literature regarding consumer acceptance of LD PEVs, we
categorized topics into a framework of our own design consisting of four related components of
acceptance—awareness, access, approval, and adoption. We discuss consumer acceptance of
LD PEVs within this framework, which we refer to as "the 4-A framework" or "our
framework."10 Each component of the framework is formally defined below.
Awareness V> Access Y> Approval Adoption
Figure 1. Stages of consumer acceptance.
Awareness, in short, is the knowledge of and the accuracy of knowledge of PEVs. It is not easily
observable and therefore almost exclusively measured as reported by consumers. Enablers of
awareness include education (e.g., Kurani 2019), advertising (e.g., Graham 2021b), social
networks (e.g., Kurani 2018), and experience (Xu et al. 2020; e.g., Singer 2020), but not all
consumers have the same exposure and receptivity. Awareness also emerges as a product of
factors internal to consumers such as confidence, attention to information, and the ability to
acquire, assimilate, and update information (Taylor and Fujita 2018; e.g., Jiang and Rosenbloom
2013; Punj and Staelin 1983). While we can ask the question, "Is a consumer aware of PEVs or
not?," consumer awareness is clearly multidimensional. Awareness is knowing about and having
a generally correct understanding of PEVs, including PEV technology, infrastructure, incentives,
use, charging, servicing, and the signs and symbols associated with PEVs and PEV
infrastructure. For example, someone could know about PEVs and have accurate knowledge of
some attributes, such as range and driving performance, but also have incorrect or no knowledge
of how to charge a PEV and the costs associated with charging. However, we will discuss it on a
gradient of less and more aware, a practice we also adopt for access and approval.
Access means that a suitable PEV is, or is perceived to be, affordable, available, and convenient
to purchase, use, charge, and service. Perhaps the simplest measure of access (i.e., most objective
and easily observable) is the availability of vehicles and charging. Where are PEVs offered for
sale; where is public, workplace, and commercial charging located; and who can get there? In
general, more PEVs, more models of PEVs, and more charging sites have been available on the
northeast and west coasts, ZEV states, and in urban areas (e.g., Alternative Fuels Data Center
2021; Brown et al. 2021; Bui et al. 2020; Le and Lindhardt 2019). It is a feasibility question in its
simplest incarnation, but not perfectly objective. Access is more subjective and more difficult to
measure when suitability, affordability, and convenience are considered. For example, even
when a PEV is available for sale, it may not be appropriate for a particular person or household
10 We note that there are several robust models developed and usefully applied to innovation and the adoption of
new technologies and products. Among the most well known are Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Theory of Planned
Behavior, Theory of Reasoned Action, and the Technology Acceptance Model. Lee at al. (2019) characterizes them
well in the following: "Diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers 2003) outlines why people adopt innovations, who
adopts them, and adoption rates over time... [including] information about the socio-demographic profile of early
adopters. [Other] consumer innovation adoption models, for example the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen 1991),
theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen 2009), or the technology acceptance model (Venkatesh and Davis
2000) ... focus on motivational factors or behavioural issues."
5
-------
(i.e., may not be suitable). For example, it may lack desired attributes such as body style, range,
image, and color. Among those vehicle attributes is price. If PEV prices, relative to income and
wealth, are high enough to effectively make PEVs unaffordable, PEVs cannot reasonably be
considered in a purchase decision. Even if a suitable, affordable PEV is available, opportunities
for purchasing, charging, or servicing may not be available in a location familiar to or frequented
by a prospective buyer. Obstacles to access can relate to both feasibility and practicality. Of the
four components of acceptance, access is the least well defined and least well understood.
Approval occurs when PEVs are perceived, at a minimum, as substitutes for other vehicles. It
arises because of favorable attitudes, opinions, and emotions, and is achieved when a consumer
seriously considers or intends to purchase a PEV. Consideration and intent, and therefore
approval, precede and are distinct from the purchase itself. Nevertheless, as a continuum,
approval is measured by the degree or level of positive views (e.g., attitudes, opinions,
emotions), perceptions, and assessments of PEVs. It is often measured via stated preference,
sometimes evidenced by inclusion of PEVs in consumers' consideration sets, and ultimately is
revealed retroactively by PEV purchase. Whether binary or continuous, approval is, at best,
difficult to observe directly prior to purchase. As a result, researchers often rely on surveys. For
example, surveys question consumers' willingness to consider PEVs and how seriously they
consider them (e.g., Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty 2019), willingness to pay for PEVs in
terms of vehicle purchase price or total cost of ownership (e.g., White and Sintov 2017),
assessment of PEVs relative to conventional vehicles (e.g., Singer 2017), and intent to purchase.
Importantly, the distance between stated intent to purchase and actual purchase can be quite
large. We include approval distinct from purchase in this organizing framework for exactly this
reason. The internal and external processes that move a consumer to a high level of approval of
PEVs are very likely to be different from those that bridge the gap between intent and actual
purchase. One needs to be at the edge of the chasm to cross the bridge to the other side.
Adoption refers to the acquisition of a PEV via purchase or lease, specifically first purchase or
lease. It is easily observable and measured via new vehicle purchases, sales, registrations, and
production (e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2021a; 2021b). However, it is difficult
to discern what tips the scales in favor of PEV purchase once consumers seriously consider
PEVs or intend to purchase a PEV (i.e., approval). As a consequence, the scientific literature
offers limited insight into the drivers of adoption, separate from approval. However, there is
consistent evidence that dealerships have influence on purchase decisions for many new vehicle
consumers, such as through offering the opportunity to experience PEVs first-hand through test
drives (Graham 2021b; Le and Lindhardt 2019; Lunetta and Coplon-Newfield 2017; Moon
2019c), though their role has declined over time (Dehdashti, Ratchford, and Namin 2018).11
The order in which we present these components is intentional. Viewed as a process, as in Figure
1 and Table 1, this stylized representation is useful organizationally, analytically, and for
communication. We emphasize that the components are not mutually exclusive, and this is not a
strictly ordered continuum. There are feedback loops. Nevertheless, awareness and adoption are
the obvious beginning and end for a process that terminates with the acquisition of a new
product. That said, one can easily imagine that ready access to PEVs and vehicle charging
infrastructure might facilitate awareness. In other words, for some individuals, access may
11 The decline in the role of dealerships in the new vehicle purchase decision may be bounded. In many states new
vehicle purchases can only occur at a dealership, despite recent innovations in vehicle sales.
6
-------
precede awareness. However, access is never a necessary condition for awareness—awareness
can be achieved via other means—so we hold fast to intuition despite some exceptions and
define awareness as the first stage in the process. Awareness, access, and approval all necessarily
precede adoption. It is reasonable to assume that individuals will not purchase vehicles about
which they are unaware, cannot obtain, and may not approve.
The somewhat trickier challenge is to determine if the most reasonable linear progression
proceeds from access to approval or from approval to access. Some individuals might not
seriously consider or intend to purchase a vehicle that is not already available to them with the
attributes they desire. In that case, access precedes approval. In contrast, other individuals may
specify in their minds or in a research study a vehicle with all the attributes they desire with
intent to purchase, only to find that their criteria cannot be satisfied with current market offerings
or in their local area. In this case, approval precedes access, and lack of access is the impediment
to purchase. Thus, the process could reasonably go either way—from access to approval or from
approval to access. We again invoke the notion of necessary conditions to resolve this.
Specifically, approval is never a necessary condition for access. But access is sometimes a
necessary condition for approval. Thus, we define this stylized continuum of four stages of
consumer acceptance as proceeding from awareness to access, then approval and adoption.
Component
Short Definition
Example Metrics
Awareness
Knowledge of and accuracy of knowledge of
PEVs
Can recognize a PEV
Can correctly name a PEV model
Can describe or identify a charging site
Can accurately describe PEV range and/or charging time
Knows that a PEV is fueled with electricity
Access
Proximity to suitable, affordable, and
convenient purchase, use, charging, and
servicing
Number of PEV models
Availability of body styles
Geographic availability
Manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP)
Ownership cost
Charging location and density
Approval
View that PEVs are, at minimum, substitutes
for conventional vehicles
"Consider" purchase
"Seriously consider" purchase
Intent to purchase (likelihood scale)
"At least as good as" ICEVs
Willingness to purchase exceeds purchase price or cost of
ownership
Adoption
First purchase or lease
Sales and purchases
Registrations
Production
Table 1. The four components constituting the organizing framework for consumer acceptance of LD PEVs.
1.4 Synthesis in Brief
The objective of this review is to provide a current, comprehensive, and accurate summary of the
scientific literature regarding U.S. consumer acceptance of personal-use light-duty (LD) plug-in
electric vehicles (PEVs). Another important objective is to develop an organizing framework that
supports actionable insights for a general audience. The questions underlying this review are as
follows:
7
-------
• What is the current state of LD PEV acceptance in the United States among personal-use
consumers at each stage of acceptance?
• How does a U.S. consumer, or community or the nation, move through the stages of PEV
acceptance?
• What enables their progression at each stage of acceptance?
• What stands in their way at each stage of acceptance?
We ask these questions without value judgements, but with the presumption that we seek to
understand how a broad range of actors and factors facilitate PEV acceptance, and how to
overcome potential obstacles.
Because the literature is broad (i.e., multidisciplinary, multisector, geographically expansive, and
diverse) as well as deep (e.g., geographically granular, scientifically rigorous), we define the
stages of the acceptance process as awareness, access, approval, and adoption, intentionally
choosing lay terms that speak to the state of mind of a consumer (or consumers) or the conditions
under which they progress toward PEV adoption. We make consumers central to our
presentation of the literature—that is, consumers in relationship with vehicles in the context of
market, social, physical, and governmental systems (Figure 2). From that point of reference, we
discuss the roles of other key actors and stakeholders (e.g., governments, vehicle manufacturers)
and the factors within physical, social, economic, and governmental contexts that influence
consumers.
(Decision Context) (Characteristics) (Attributes)
Figure 2. Interactions among consumers with diverse characteristics, vehicles with myriad attributes, and within a
multitude of complex systems
Within this framework, we address the above questions via a summary and synthesis of the
scientific literature. In the interest of scope and readability, we do not attempt to provide an
exhaustive summary. Rather, we endeavor to be faithful to the literature as presented in the
studies reviewed and have taken steps to ensure that critical literature is included. We also
choose not to evaluate studies relative to each other. This choice should not be taken to mean that
studies are equivalent via any metric of quality, merely that we do not offer an assessment of
study quality with the exception of being of sufficiently high quality to be included in the review.
In addition, we do not assess, evaluate, or critique the specific studies.12 We do select what
appears to reflect the variety of metrics, geographic diversity, sampling techniques, methods
employed, and findings in the studies reviewed. We also note the amount of literature relevant to
12 In Appendix A, we provide additional detail on the methods, scope, sample size, etc., of cited studies to allow
readers of this report to better understand these sources, the specific populations to which they refer, and their
potential limitations.
8
-------
a stage or topic, the consistency of that literature, and the degree to which the literature
conclusively supplies actionable recommendations for enabling PEV acceptance and for future
research
Before proceeding with our summary (i.e., Sections 2-6) and synthesis (i.e., Section 7), we
want to emphasize what we believe is implicit in the material that follows. With the exception of
a likely small subset of consumers, we found that the enablers and obstacles of PEV acceptance
are largely external to the consumer. In other words, we found no evidence in the reviewed
literature to suggest anything immutable within consumers or inherent to PEVs that irremediably
obstructs acceptance. Rather, under favorable conditions, including supporting the demonstrable
plasticity of attitudes, emotions, and preferences, acceptance of PEVs is achievable among
mainstream consumers. In addition, we note that awareness, access, and approval enable
adoption. Thus, converting intent to adopt into actual purchase is critically important. There can
be a strong focus on moving people from considering a PEV to actually buying one. While this is
important, efforts to promote this shift in consumers should not replace efforts to improve
awareness, access, and approval, which are all critical to adoption as well. Furthermore, we note
the repeated appearance of enablers at multiple stages of acceptance. Specifically, favorable
location, demographics, and attitudes correlate with awareness, access, approval, and adoption.13
Direct and indirect experience with PEVs encourages awareness, approval, and adoption.
Finally, the proliferation of charging availability facilitates each of the necessary conditions for
adoption, albeit in different ways, namely via exposure, access, convenience, and cost.
Focusing first on awareness, a PEV-aware consumer recognizes a PEV when they see one and
understands how PEVs and ICEVs differ. A consumer who is more aware of PEVs knows
generally about available makes and models, has an accurate idea of the attributes and features
available on PEV models, and understands that PEVs are charged with electricity rather than
fueled with gasoline. Awareness also extends to recognition and understanding of charging
infrastructure as well as knowledge of incentives associated with PEV adoption.
Measurements of various metrics of awareness among consumers vary, covering a wide range
from the high teens to the low eighties in terms of percentages of individuals surveyed or
interviewed. Generally, a higher percentage of consumers possess a general awareness of PEVs
(e.g., they know that vehicles that use electricity rather than gasoline exist) as compared to
consumers with more concrete awareness of PEVs (e.g., those who can name one or more PEV
models available on the market). Synthesizing the information presented across studies, we
conservatively estimate that approximately half of U.S. consumers have some basic awareness of
PEVs. PEV awareness hinges on having information, specifically correct information delivered
by a credible party to a receptive audience. With mixed results, friends, relatives, dealers,
manufacturers, and governments are key enablers of awareness. Another key enabler of
13 First, by "favorable locations", we mean places, for example, with charging infrastructures and PEV incentives
and benefits. "Favorable demographics" refers to demographics currently correlated with PEV adoption such as high
income and single-family housing. Similarly, "favorable attitudes" refers to attitudes associated with current PEV
adopters like technology affinity, environmentalism, and particular awareness and/or sensitivity to vehicle operating
costs. Second, growing acceptance in favorable locations and within favorable demographic group is, at minimum, a
suboptimal strategy. Rather, high market penetration of PEVs requires the expansion of PEV acceptance to more
locations and demographic groups. One can make a similar argument regarding individuals with favorable attitudes.
In addition, attitudes are malleable and arguably ill-informed and under-stimulated by early PEV offerings,
advertising, education, exposure, etc.
9
-------
awareness is a consumer's local exposure to PEVs, PEV incentives, PEV policies, and PEV
infrastructure. Furthermore, opportunities for direct experience with PEVs provide high quality
information and positively affects not only PEV awareness, but also approval and adoption.
PEV access has physical and financial aspects, and its enablers and obstacles may relate to
feasibility and practicality. Vehicles and charging infrastructure must be available in sufficient
numbers and locations. Access requires that vehicles and charging are affordable, and with
affordability in mind, the incentives must be available and easy to obtain. Access is difficult to
characterize, let alone measure. However, it is clear that access varies geographically and socio-
economically. Key enablers, therefore, are the continued expansion of charging infrastructure,
implementation and expansion of PEV incentives and benefits, and the growth in availability of
PEVs and PEV models at various price points.
PEV approval is the intent that precedes PEV purchase, and depending on the consumer, a rough
equivalent for adoption or a far cry away. Though the literature on what we term approval is
substantial, there is no shared metric across studies. A consumer who approves of PEVs views a
PEV as a plausible substitute for an ICEV, expresses a positive assessment of PEVs, includes
PEVs in their consideration set, and/or may express sufficient willingness to pay for a PEV. Key
obstacles to approval likely echo awareness obstacles - namely a lack of knowledge or accurate
knowledge of, exposure to, and experience with PEVs, PEV chargers, and PEV-related
incentives - which undermine confidence and buoy uncertainty regarding PEV technology. As
with access, lack of physical proximity to PEVs and charging and relative affordability of PEVs
also inhibit consumers at the approval stage. However, surges in PEV sales and pre-orders in
response to specific models (e.g., Tesla Model 3, Ford F150 Lightning) suggest there is growing
demand for PEVs outside the original PEV markets, willingness to pay for PEVs appears to be
increasing, and targeted education and advertising hold promise.
Finally, PEV adoption is on the rise. New PEV sales represented 2.2% of all new vehicles sales
in 2020 and were estimated to have grown to 4%-5% in 2021. As with other stages of
acceptance, adoption thus far has been geographically and socioeconomically uneven, has been
more common among specific subgroups of consumers,14 and has occurred more often in the
presence of favorable PEV policies. PEV adoption among amenable subgroups and/or those able
to benefit from favorable policies does not fully explain PEV adoption to date, nor is it likely to
fully explain the mechanisms that lead to widespread adoption or the interventions that facilitate
adoption among mainstream consumers. Enablers of adoption can also occur at the time of
purchase. Test drives and sales practices can tip the scales; a positive dealer-purchaser
interaction can be a key enabler of adoption.
1.5 Organization of the Review
Section 2 begins with a discussion of vehicle consumers and PEV consumers—who they are,
their relationships with vehicles and the vehicle purchase process, and their relationships with
contextual elements such as infrastructure, policy, and social and market forces. We proceed
according to our 4-A framework. In Sections 3 and 4, we bring awareness and access to the fore
14 E.g., high income buyers, single-family home-owners, technology forward, or environmentally oriented
consumers
10
-------
and disentangle approval and adoption in Sections 5 and 6. Our review does not include post-
adoption PEV usage, though we acknowledge this is a rich area of research.
For each stage of the 4-A framework, we provide a summary of the relevant measures, metrics,
and methods, followed by:
• the current state of acceptance at each stage,
• consumer characteristics that facilitate or inhibit the given stage of acceptance,
• vehicle attributes and features that positively and negatively influence the given stage of
acceptance, and
• system factors that enhance or impede the given stage of acceptance.
We close in Section 7 with a synthesis of the literature. We additionally provide a descriptive
table of cited studies in Appendix A, in which we note the analytical methods, scope, sample
size, and other features of the works we cite throughout this report.
11
-------
2 CONSUMERS
Many empirical studies provide insight into LD PEV acceptance among adopters of vehicle
electrification (i.e., owners and lessees), while others examine the knowledge, opinions,
attitudes, preferences, beliefs, and intent of non-PEV owners and lessees. In addition to the
known limitations of both revealed preference and stated preference studies, PEV adopters and
non-adopters observed to date almost certainly differ from the anticipated mainstream PEV
adopters who would drive a large-scale PEV adoption scenario.
Acknowledging these limitations and contrasting PEV adopters and non-adopters, studies
generally find that PEV adopters to date, on average, have higher incomes and more education
than non-adopters. PEV adopters are also more likely to be male and to own their homes. In
addition, current PEV adopters are more likely to self-identify with cutting edge technology,
more likely to report environmental interests, and/or more likely to have interest in or knowledge
of fuel prices. Finally, current PEV adopters tend to live in more urban locations, with more PEV
registrations on the northeast and west coasts compared to other regions15 (Jung 2019b; 2019c;
e.g., AFDC 2021a; Kurani and Buch 2021; Bui, Slowik, and Lutsey 2020; Shin, Farkas, and
Nickkar 2019; Degirmenci and Breitner 2017; DeShazo 2017; Soltani-Sobh et al. 2017; Morton,
Anable, and Nelson 2016; Hardman and Tal 2016; Archsmith, Muehlegger, and Rapson 2021).
In studying the characteristics of current PEV adopters and potential PEV adopters, and the
characteristics of individuals associated with PEV adoption thus far, many researchers employ
the language of technology diffusion. Like many of the studies reviewed, we also employ the
categories of early adopters, and mainstream or majority (e.g., Rogers 2003).
Before turning our attention to a detailed examination of each stage of the 4-A Framework, we
provide a background overview on several important topics surrounding consumer acceptance of
PEVs. First, we discuss steps of the consumer purchase process, grounded in generalized
consumer behavior research, and the ways in which consumer purchase behavior interact with
and affect the 4-As. Building from the purchase process, we delve deeper into the criteria
consumers use to select between available vehicles, including broad types of criteria and
common decision rules. As decision criteria and ultimate vehicle choice are often observed to
correlate with consumer characteristics, we also describe key consumer characteristics that relate
to PEV acceptance, as well as ways characteristics are used to define segments of the population.
Finally, we conclude the section with discussion of ways in which consumers interact with
vehicles and systems (i.e., market, social, physical, policy).
2.1 Consumer purchase process
To provide context for the ways in which awareness, access, approval, and adoption of PEVs
manifest, it is useful to consider the process through which consumers purchase vehicles. One
such depiction is the five step consumer purchase process, which includes: (1) problem
recognition, (2) search (internal and external), (3) alternative evaluation, (4) purchase, and
(5) post-purchase experience (e.g., Taylor and Fujita 2018; Darley, Blankson, and Luethge 2010;
Engel, Kollat, and Blackwell 1968). Throughout the purchase process, consumer awareness and
15 Some studies (e.g., Jia & Chen 2021) note that PEV adopters are older, while others (e.g., Archsmith et al. 2021)
describe PEV adopters as younger than the average car buyer. Some studies (e.g., Jia & Chen 2021) also show that
younger consumers state more interest in PEVs than older consumers do.
12
-------
approval of PEVs, as well as access to PEV models, will impact the likelihood of the consumer
ultimately adopting a PEV.
In problem recognition, a consumer identifies the need or desire for a new vehicle; it often stems
from the need to replace an existing vehicle, to meet a new need, or from the expectation of
greater utility from a new vehicle. In all of these cases, awareness of PEVs comes into play. An
aware consumer will be better able to recognize when a PEV may be well-suited to their lifestyle
and travel patterns, while an unaware consumer is unlikely to identify a PEV as a potential
solution to their recognized problem. Even if consumers are aware of PEVs, there is evidence
that households seeking to replace a vehicle are less likely to be willing to consider PEVs (i.e.,
less likely to approve of PEVs) than those looking to purchase an additional vehicle (e.g.,
Higgins, Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017). Similarly, even when consumers are aware of and
approve of PEVs (i.e. willing to consider PEV purchase), PEVs are still viewed more favorably
as additional rather than replacement vehicles (e.g., Higgins, Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017;
Karlsson 2017; Kurani, Turrentine, and Sperling 1996). It is not clear whether this tendency will
persist in the coming years.
Awareness is also a major component of the next step—search—bounding not only what
consumers know but also the new information they seek. During internal search, a consumer
consults their existing store of knowledge to identify vehicles that could meet the need(s) or
desire(s) identified in problem recognition (i.e., their consideration set). Internal search, and
therefore awareness, also frames the types of information a consumer seeks out from external
sources, such as expert reviews, manufacturer and dealer websites, or advice from family and
friends. Thus, given the relationship between what we call awareness and what marketing calls
search, the limits of a consumer's awareness of PEVs dictates what they already know about
PEVs (i.e., internal search) and constrains what they are likely to learn from external sources
(i.e., external search). By shaping internal and external search, awareness of PEVs is integral to
inclusion of PEVs in a consumer's consideration set. In other words, if a consumer is not aware
of PEVs, PEV attributes and features, PEV-related infrastructure, and PEV-related incentives
and policies, PEVs will not enter into consideration. The constraining effect of low awareness on
internal and external search, however, can be moderated by an individual's approach or
circumstances.
Alternative evaluation involves the consumer assessing the objective and subjective attributes
and features of the vehicles in their consideration set. To do this, the consumer applies a unique-
to-the-individual set of decision rules that weigh vehicle attributes based on criteria derived from
the consumer's needs and preferences, and the information gained during the search step. These
decision rules are characterized as "compensatory" if they involve trade-offs between criteria,
and "non-compensatory" if the consumer considers them to be non-negotiable. The outcomes of
alternative evaluation are three sets of products: an evoked set (i.e., vehicles the consumer is
willing to purchase), an inept set (i.e., vehicles the consumer is not willing to purchase), and an
inert set (i.e., vehicles the consumer feels indifferent about).
The decision rules used to assess the suitability of vehicle models to a consumer's specific needs
have implications for PEV acceptance. Common criteria considered under alternative evaluation
include several relating to PEV access, including:
13
-------
• vehicle and model availability at nearby dealerships (access in terms of geography);
• vehicle attribute availability (access to utility);
• purchase price, financing options, and financial incentives (access in terms of
affordability);
• and availability of public charging and/or potential for home charging (access to
infrastructure).
It almost goes without saying that without access to PEVs, the evoked set and associated
willingness to purchase a PEV is trumped by practical limitations. Setting aside access
challenges, assignment of PEV models to the evoked set hinges on consumer approval of PEVs.
A lack of PEV approval relegates all PEV models to a consumer's inept set, even if attributes of
PEV models do align with consumer criteria.
In the purchase step, a consumer makes the decision to buy (or not buy) a vehicle in their
consideration set; possibly concluding with PEV adoption. While simple to state, the leap from
approval to adoption may be a significant one. It can be facilitated and impeded by both tangible
and intangible factors. These factors include the various types of access described above, the
sales/buying experience, the alignment of compensatory and non-compensatory criteria and with
vehicle attributes, and a host of psychological, emotional, and social factors.
The post-purchase experience of using a PEV and incorporating it into everyday travel patterns is
another aspect of PEV adoption. Post-purchase experiences, and how they compare to a
consumer's pre-purchase expectations, shape a consumer's likelihood of retaining a recently
purchased PEV and of continuing to buy PEVs in the future. The post-purchase experience can
also affect the awareness and approval of others that the PEV owner interacts with. Current
owners of PEVs, particularly those with strong positive feelings about their post-purchase
experience, can help to raise the awareness and approval of those who do not yet have direct
experience with a PEV (Kurani et al. 2018; Kurani 2019).
2.2 Criteria: What Consumers Want from a Vehicle
Criteria are decision rules that consumers use to weigh different vehicle options as they evaluate
alternatives in the course of the vehicle purchase process. Criteria define and prioritize what
consumers want from a vehicle (e.g., Fujita et al. 2022). They may relate to specific vehicle
features (e.g., number of passenger seats) or to the broader vehicle attributes that are outcomes of
features sets (e.g., safety rating, which is a function of safety-related features such as airbags,
blind-spot detection, etc.). The available vehicles that a consumer evaluates in the context of
their criteria constitute their "consideration set." The vehicles within this set change over time as
a consumer eliminates models from consideration or learns of new appealing options.
2.2.1 Compensatory and non-compensatory decision rules
Consumer evaluation methodologies can be broadly classified into compensatory and non-
compensatory decision rules. If a criterion is compensatory, a consumer is potentially willing to
"trade off one vehicle feature or attribute for another (e.g., low price may outweigh a color they
do not particularly like). A non-compensatory decision rule addresses a non-negotiable aspect of
a vehicle (e.g., number of seats, minimum cargo area, safety rating). For example, recent
research suggests that vehicle body type may be non-compensatory for many consumers
14
-------
(e.g., Fujita et al. 2022; Archsmith, Muehlegger, and Rapson 2021; Higgins, Mohamed, and
Ferguson 2017), with implications for PEV access, approval, and adoption, given that several
types of vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks, minivans) have had very few, if any, PEV models available
on the market. Another criterion that is often non-compensatory for consumers, across PEVs and
ICEVs, is vehicle safety, in terms of either a test score metric or the presence of certain safety
features (e.g., blind spot detection).
2.2.2 Objective and subjective criteria
Criteria often relate to objective vehicle features and attributes or subjective attributes. Objective
criteria relate to aspects of a vehicle that are tangible, observable, and/or measurable. For
example, the amount of time required for a vehicle to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per hour can
be measured, and informs attribute-based criteria related to vehicle power and performance.
Other objective criteria may relate to the volume of cargo space or number of passenger seats
(two aspects noted as reasons for preferring ICE over PEV in a study by Higgins, Mohamed, and
Ferguson 2017). Subjective criteria relate to vehicle attributes that are less tangible or more tacit,
and more difficult to measure. For example, assessments of vehicle design and style, and the
character or image of a vehicle are subjective attributes, which will differ widely across
consumers.
2.2.3 Common consumer criteria for vehicle selection
Some attribute-based criteria have been found to be important across numerous studies of
consumer vehicle preferences, including safety, price or value, durability or reliability, and
performance (e.g., Fujita et al. 2022). PEV approval and ultimate adoption will be affected by the
degree to which consumers perceive accessible PEV models to meet these and other important
criteria. To date, it is a common finding that the environmental performance of PEVs is a
stronger predictor of positive consumer attitude toward PEVs (i.e., approval) than factors such as
vehicle price and driving range confidence (Degirmenci and Breitner 2017).
Along with criteria common across all vehicle types, consumers often have a set of criteria
specific to PEVs, such as range, charging/fueling speed, and charging/fueling opportunities.
While these criteria have analogs in the context of ICEVs, the infrastructure to support ICEVs is
so ubiquitous that these criteria enter into consideration differently for PEVs. For example,
limited driving range on a charge has long been noted as a barrier to PEV adoption, with multiple
studies finding that a majority of ICEV buyers indicate that they would not consider purchasing a
PEV with less than 300 miles range (e.g., Singer 2016; Consumer Reports 2020). The ICEV
analog is the distance that can be driven on a tank of gas. However, the widespread availability
of gas stations largely diminishes the importance of this vehicle attribute. For PEV consumers,
distance per charge may be a relevant concern depending on their access to charging. Similarly,
the time required to recharge is a criterion unique to PEVs, as gas refueling times are generally
negligible. Furthermore, PEVs also offer the unique ability to charge both at home and away
from home. Notably, Level 2 home charging is a feature that appears to support the repeated
purchase of PEVs (Hardman and Tal 2021). While we highlight PEV-specific criteria, keep in
mind these criteria are still balanced against many other consumer considerations such as safety,
durability, performance, power, environmental performance, value, design, image, and so on.
15
-------
Each consumer uses a unique set of decision rules to assess the fit between their personal criteria
and available vehicle models, though commonalities have been observed across groups of
consumers. For example, Kurani & Buch (2021) noted that among PEV buyers, women were
more apt to purchase based on environmental attributes, while men were more likely to cite the
high tech aspect of PEVs as a factor in their purchase. These, and similar, observations provide
evidence that vehicle selection criteria may differ based on consumer characteristics.
Additionally, as Morton et al. (2016) note, it is important to understand the importance that
consumers ascribe to vehicle attributes and purchase criteria, as well as the factors that underpin
such evaluations.
2.3 Characteristics: Who Consumers Are
We use the umbrella term "characteristics" to describe aspects of consumers. These include
socio-demographic characteristics of individuals, such as age, income, education, race, and
gender, and of households, such as residence location, household size, and number of household
vehicles. Socio-demographic characteristics tend to be observable and measurable.
Along with socio-demographics, other characteristics of consumers have relevance to their
transportation behaviors and acceptance of PEVs. This class of characteristics is largely latent
and unobservable (or difficult to observe). These characteristics are often gauged through
consumers' statements describing psycho-social, political, or economic traits, such as attitudes,
preferences, knowledge and perceptions, emotions, beliefs, status, identity and personality,
lifestyle, and social connectedness. Like socio-demographics, latent and unobservable
characteristics are associated with PEV acceptance.
Socio-demographic (i.e., observable) and latent or unobservable characteristics sometimes
co-occur, though not always conclusively. For example, Morton et al. (2016) found higher
educational attainment correlated with a reduced consideration of a car as an important
possession, and an increased level of concern about environmental impacts. However, Fujita et
al. (2022) found that low-income new vehicle buyers more heavily weighted environmental
criteria in their vehicle purchase process than high-income new vehicle buyers.
2.3.1 High-level summary of known characteristics that contribute to PEV acceptance
For some consumer characteristics, recent studies reinforce long-standing observations. A high
level of education, high income, and strong environmental concern are factors that have long
been identified as consumer characteristics with positive effects on PEV adoption (e.g., Hidrue et
al. 2011) and continue to be called out in the literature today (e.g., Jia and Chen 2021; Hardman,
Shiu, and Steinberger-Wilckens 2016; Hardman and Tal 2021; Briickmann, Willibald, and
Blanco 2021). Specifically, Lee et al. (2019) found that "high income families" currently
represent the largest share of the PEV market today, but also note that this segment represents a
very small portion of total households. PEV adopters to date have also been predominately
homeowners and/or occupants of single family homes. Pro-environmental attitudes, technology
affinity, and concern for fuel efficiency are also well established factors that are supported by
recent findings (e.g., Li et al. 2017; Axsen, Bailey, and Castro 2015; Kurani 2019; Moon 2019a;
2019b; 2019c). We refer to consumer characteristics often associated with PEV adopters as
"favorable characteristics." However, PEV adopters are by no means a monolith and several
16
-------
studies have investigated the heterogeneity among the buyers of PEVs, particularly with
attention to the buyers of PEVs at comparatively low and high price points (e.g., Hardman, Shiu,
and Steinberger-Wilckens 2016). Specifically, Hardman et al. (2016) noted that buyers of high-
end BEVs differed significantly from buyers of low-end BEVs in terms of gender, income,
education, and age. High-end PEV buyers had higher incomes, were older, and had higher
educational attainment. They were also more likely to be female than low-end adopters, but the
representativeness of this finding is uncertain due to the overall very small number of women in
the sample.
In early years of PEV sales, stated and revealed approval of PEVs was usually found to be higher
among men than women. The gap in stated approval of PEVs between men and women has
narrowed according to recent survey research (e.g., Kurani and Buch 2021), but revealed
preferences studies continue to show that PEV buyers are predominantly male. Kurani (2019)
found that a gender gap remains even after accounting for other socio-demographic
characteristics; other preferences for environment, technology, and time; and specific knowledge
of PEVs. Higher adoption rates among men than women continue to be identified in recent
studies, such as Jia and Chen's (2021) finding of somewhat higher adoption of PHEVs and
substantially higher adoption rates of BEVs among men.
PEV acceptance also varies across locations. Singer (2020) found differences in awareness and
approval by comparing survey responses before and after PEV ride-and-drive events in the U.S.
Pacific Northwest, Midwest, and Northeast, noting higher awareness and approval in the Pacific
Northwest. Guerra and Daziano (2020) note that variation in acceptance also varies at a finer
scale, pointing out that local features, such as the availability of parking and travel distances
between destinations, vary across neighborhoods and likely have an influence on local PEV
adoption rates.
While socio-demographic information tends to be easiest to collect, there is evidence that other
characteristics, such as aspects of personality and psychographics, can be strongly correlated
with PEV acceptance, in some cases more so than the commonly cited characteristics of gender,
age, and income (e.g., Kurani 2019). Jia and Chen (2021) report that compared to ICEV owners,
PEV owners in their sample were more likely to identify as "risk-taking," "environmentally
conscientious," and "an early adopter [of] new technology." Similarly, Kurani (2019) found that
those who express interest in PEVs are more motivated by future consequences.
Consumer perceptions of PEVs and their related infrastructure influence PEV acceptance. Kurani
(2019) found that among non-PEV owners, survey respondents generally perceive an
insufficiency of charging locations, charge times that are too long, and driving ranges between
charge that are too short. Such perceptions, whether or not they accurately reflect the attributes
of PEVs and related infrastructure, affect consumers' assessments and therefore approval of
PEVs. Regarding other aspects of PEV performance and utility, Higgins et al. (2017) found
evidence of low consumer knowledge, in terms of arguably inaccurate preconceptions of PEVs.
Consumers in Higgins et al.'s (2017) sample described PEVs as small and under-performing as
compared to ICEVs. Those interested in a minivan, pickup truck, or SUV stated that they
preferred ICEVs because good performance was important to them. Those interested in a full-
sized sedan or SUV stated that they preferred ICEVs because they required substantial passenger
and/or cargo space that PEVs did not [yet] provide. As noted by Morton et al. (2016), it is
17
-------
necessary to consider consumer perceptions of PEV complexity, reliability, and safety alongside
the more commonly studied aspects of range anxiety and response to purchase price premiums.
2.4 Consumer Segments
We use the term "consumer segment" to refer to a group of consumers who bear similarity to one
another in terms of their observable and unobservable characteristics, which includes the
attributes of vehicles of interest to them. Considering consumer segments can be important in the
context of PEV acceptance when the defining aspects of the segment (e.g., gender or location)
correlate with differences in interest in or availability of PEVs and PEV models, for example.16
While there are many possible ways to define consumer segments, we focus primarily on just a
few according to adopter status, and to body style or vehicle segment. The first aligns, arguably,
with several useful frameworks such as the Diffusion of Innovation Theory (Rogers 2003) and
Ajzen's Theory of Planned Behavior (1991). The second reflects the importance of body style in
vehicle decision rules.
An informative way to segment potential vehicle buyers is to consider the differences between
early adopters of PEVs as compared to those who have not yet adopted.17 In addition to the
characteristics PEV adopters noted in Section 2.3.1, Jung (2019b) finds parallels between typical
early adopters and PEV adopters. Specifically, innovativeness is an early adopter tendency that
"has significant influence on the determinants of [PEV] adoption," such as intent.
As noted in several recent studies, there is evidence that consumers tend to select from within
broad vehicle categories,18 that consumers of different vehicle categories differ from each other
across demographics and other characteristics (e.g., Higgins, Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017; X.
Wang, Shaw, and Mokhtarian 2022), and that PEV approval and retention likely differ across
segments (e.g., Hardman, Shiu, and Steinberger-Wilckens 2016). Because vehicle body type
appears to be a non-compensatory criterion for many consumers (e.g., Fujita et al. 2022),
differentiating consumer segments by the body type of vehicle they are looking to purchase can
reveal insights into heterogeneity in PEV acceptance. In addition to the examples provided by
Higgins et al. (2017), Jia and Chen (2021) found that consumers interested in purchasing
subcompact or compact cars were more interested in PEVs than those seeking to purchase larger
vehicles like SUVs or vans. These findings may shift over time as manufacturers expand PEV
model offerings (e.g., ACEEE 2021; 2022).
Important criteria appear to differ across consumer segments defined by vehicle body type, as
noted by Higgins et al. (2017), who found that each segment defined by vehicle body style varied
16 One way in which to distinguish consumer segments is to consider separately those consumers who purchase new
versus used vehicles, particularly as studies have noted higher likelihood of PEV approval among new vehicle
purchasers (e.g., Singer 2016). Because used car sales account for more than 70 percent of total light duty vehicle
sales in the U.S. in 2020, the used car market is a critical element to achieve mass adoption of PEVs. Further
acknowledging that growing a used PEV market can encourage the purchase of new PEVs by increasing certainty
surrounding resale value and improve a potential buyer's evaluation of PEV value (Zou, Khaloei, and Mackenzie
2020), we restate as noted previously that this review focuses on the new car market.
17 Those who have not adopted PEVs are also sometimes called also "prospective adopters," "non-adopters," or
"mainstream," "majority," "average," or "conventional" buyers.
18 Several common ways in which vehicle types are categorized in data collection, modeling, and analysis include:
body style (e.g., minivan, SUV, hatchback, pickup truck), size (e.g., compact, midsize, large), and segment (e.g.,
economy, luxury).
18
-------
in social demographics and preferred vehicle-related attributes. Specifically, they found that
respondents in the survey sample who were interested in a luxury vehicle were as likely to
purchase a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) or PHEV as an ICE vehicle, and those who were
interested in a minivan were as likely to choose an HEV as an ICE vehicle.19 Luxury and SUV
customers were the least concerned about the possible disadvantages of BEVs as compared to the
conventional ICE vehicles. The pickup segment showed a lower likelihood of considering PHEV
and BEV. There is consumer recognition of this type of segmentation as well, as demonstrated
by a Consumer Reports finding that a majority of survey respondents agreed that automakers
should make PEV technology available for a variety of vehicle types (Consumer Reports
2020).20 A variety of PEV models are increasingly becoming available, offering different size,
range, performance, etc., at different price points.
2.5 How Do Consumers Interact with Vehicles?
To further facilitate discussion of consumer interaction with vehicles, we define the relevant
aspects of vehicles for our discussion: features and attributes. Features are physical components
of vehicles, such as side curtain airbags or blindspot-sensing systems; they are concrete, tangible,
and can in general be measured or visually identified. Attributes derive from features and
encompass broader concepts such as "safety" or "environmental performance." During the
purchase process, consumer perceptions of attributes ultimately drive decisions.
PEV approval and adoption are affected by the combination of attributes and features included in
marketed PEV models as they relate to the sets of attributes and features valued by consumers.
Vehicle attributes and consumers' preferences for them have been the topic of a variety of
studies in the U.S. and around the world. While the exact set of attributes relevant to specific
consumers varies, along with the relative importance they ascribe to each (i.e., their purchase
criteria and decision rules), there are a number of attributes that have been commonly identified
as relevant to vehicle purchase decisions in general. These include, for example, design,
performance, power, durability, safety, value, comfort, image, environment, and fuel economy
(Fujita et al. 2022).21
Here we describe some of the key attributes relevant to vehicle purchase decisions and the
vehicle features and metrics that relate to them. The attribute of affordability, sometimes referred
to as "value" or "economic aspects" in previous studies (e.g., Raut, Bhasin, and Kamble 2011), is
19 Note that this review focuses on BEVs and PHEVs. However, many studies include HEVs. To be faithful to the
research, we include Higgins et al.'s (2017) HEV results here.
20 Interestingly, when asked to design a plausible next new vehicle, 38% of California respondents designed a PHEV
(21%), BEV (11%), or FCEV (6%) in a design world with electric vehicles incentives but without all-electric drive
in full-size vehicles (Kurani, Caperello, and TyreeHageman 2016). Noting the differences between California (e.g.,
Kurani, Caperello, and TyreeHageman 2016), Canadian (e.g., Higgins, Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017), and
American (e.g., Consumer Reports 2020) respondents and the timing of this study, Kurani's (2016) results are only
arguably in contrast to Higgins et al. (2017) and Consumer Reports (2020) regarding body style. Instead, this may be
an artifact of survey methodologies, an illustration of regional heterogeneity, evolution of preferences over time, or
possibly an indication that the divide between intent and purchase (i.e., approval and adoption) is significant and
perhaps under-studied.
21 Recent reviews of attributes relevant to PEV purchase include Liao et al. (2017) and Coffman et al. (2017). Liao
et al. (2017) consider attributes grouped into "financial," "technical," "infrastructure," and "policy" categories,
while Coffman et al. (2017) highlight several specific "internal factors" of EVs: "vehicle ownership costs, driving
range, and charging time."
19
-------
an outcome of vehicle price, which is influenced by location, dealership, form of payment,
government incentives, etc., and the cost of ownership; the affordability attribute is of particular
importance to consumers in the context of available income and access to incentives. The
attribute of safety is an outcome of such features as collision warning, automatic braking, blind
spot detection and other advanced driver-assistance systems (ADAS) technologies. The attribute
of performance can encompass aspects including acceleration and handling. Acceleration is itself
an outcome of electric motor, engine, and related vehicle systems. Handling also derives from
physical vehicle components. Of import for many current PEV adopters is a vehicle's
"environmental performance," which incorporates such aspects as fuel economy, fuel type, and
emissions, as well as the environmental impacts of the vehicle production (e.g., the energy and
materials used to construct the vehicle). Fuel economy and range per charge are commonly
discussed attributes of PEVs, with salience to environmental performance, affordability, and the
ease of owning and driving a PEV.
When purchasing a vehicle, consumers engage in a complex process beginning with the
recognition that they want or need a vehicle, culminating in a purchase that could result in short
term or long post-purchase experience with that vehicle. The 4-A framework defined in Section
1.3 and the purchase process described in Section 2.1 consider approval, search, and alternative
evaluation, where the task of matching shopping criteria to vehicle attributes and features is most
salient. This effort brings together both pragmatic and intangible aspects of consumers'
relationships with vehicles.
Among the more (but not perfectly) practical considerations are the tangible aspects of vehicles
that have taken the form of advantages and disadvantages in the press and scientific literature.
According to Graham (2021a), commonly accepted advantages of PEVs are:
• Driving performance (e.g., sporty, instantaneous torque)
• Environmental performance (or environmental potential)22
• Lower operating costs (i.e., energy costs)
• Lower maintenance and repair costs
• Home, workplace, and public charging (i.e., convenience in daily use)
• Less noise
Commonly noted PEV disadvantages include:
• Higher purchase cost
• Range
• Charging time
• Uncertain battery life
• Resale value
Many of these advantages and disadvantages are arguable, perceived, and acted upon differently
by different consumers, or are more or less salient depending on context or circumstances
(Graham 2021a). Along with the actual features and attributes of PEVs, consumer perceptions of
these vehicle aspects influence PEV acceptance. For example, Morton et al. (2016) found that
22 Graham (2021a) does not explicitly include environmental performance among advantages, though environmental
performance is clearly a vehicle attribute valued by many current PEV adopters. Thus, we include it among
advantages.
20
-------
consumers who were concerned with the practicality of personal vehicles as a means of travel
were less likely to positively view the performance, reliability, and safety of PEVs. The
consumer tendency to create cognitive associations with brands (e.g., brand perceptions, brand
loyalty) also has implications for several aspects of PEV acceptance. For example, consumers
loyal to a particular make were more likely to know about, approve of, and purchase a PEV if
their preferred manufacturer produces and markets PEVs (Morton, Anable, and Nelson 2016).
In addition to the practical considerations of selecting a vehicle, consumers place symbolic,
emotive, and instrumental meanings on vehicle ownership (Morton et al. 2016). Many
individuals consider what the vehicle represents within the context of their identity and the
emotions elicited by driving the vehicle and envisioning themself in it, which is clearly
evidenced by the general nature of vehicle advertising. This evidence extends to the scientific
literature on PEV acceptance (Moon 2019b; 2019c; Kurani et al. 2018; Tal et al. 2020). For
example, White and Sintov (2017) showed that certain aspects of self-identity, such as
identifying as an "environmentalist" or a "social innovator," are positively correlated with intent
to adopt a PEV and willingness to pay more for a PEV, controlling for other variables including
vehicle-related attributes and demographics. It almost goes without saying that consumers also
consider such factors as their lifestyle, social norms, and perceptions of peers. All of these
factors enter into the ways in which consumers interact with vehicles in general, including PEVs.
2.6 How Do Consumers Interact with Systems?
Consumer acceptance of PEVs does not occur in a vacuum, but rather within the context of a
number of overlapping systems, all of which have the potential to influence PEV awareness,
access, approval, and adoption. In particular, we consider four types of systems: market systems,
social systems, physical systems, and government systems.
2.6.1 Market systems
Market systems encompass the broader economic background in which vehicle purchase
decisions take place, as well as the specific markets for vehicles and vehicle fuels.
Many factors influence the ability of consumers to pay for the upfront and operating costs of
vehicles, and therefore, will affect their decisions regarding whether and when to purchase a
vehicle, and which to select. Especially important are macroeconomic conditions (e.g., inflation,
interest rates, unemployment, wage growth or stagnation), a consumer's personal wealth and
income, availability and access to credit (e.g., immediate/near-term access to capital), and the
ability to recover expenses through a tax credit. In the absence of favorable macroeconomic or
personal circumstances, access to vehicle purchase and approval will be constrained, especially
for PEVs as long as the average purchase price of PEVs exceeds that of conventional vehicles.
The lower cost of ownership achievable for many PEV consumers may make PEVs more
accessible and increases PEV approval rates for some. However, the degree to which a
mainstream consumer will incorporate ownership costs into their purchase decision is
unknown.23
23 It seems reasonable to assume that total cost of ownership will prove no more important or clear a predictor of
PEV purchase than it is for ICEVs. In the context of EVs, Dumortier et al. (2015) found that the manner in which
21
-------
Additionally, vehicle fuel prices respond to broader market conditions and vary geographically.
Gasoline prices vary geographically and are subject to changes in global oil production and
pricing. Electricity prices and charging costs also vary geographically. Rate structures are
complex within and across regions, and the source of electricity generation varies geographically
and by time of day. Furthermore, beyond the local retail price of electricity, PEV charging prices
can be highly variable and may or may not be subsidized by the charger provider. For example,
per unit electricity charging costs can be substantially higher at public charging stations
compared to retail electricity costs at homes. This difference is especially notable for some
consumers, such as apartment dwellers, who cannot install charging at home and could face these
higher charging costs. Many PEV consumers are motivated by the environmental performance of
PEVs, and others report greater interest in PEVs when electricity generation is sourced from
renewable. However, the variability and complexity of electricity generation and distribution—as
well as charging locations, fees, and subsidies on the whole—may create hesitancy and act as a
counterweight to the reduced operating costs that many consumers could achieve through a PEV
purchase.
Finally, access to and approval of PEVs for some consumers may also be constrained by the
strategic decisions of manufacturers and dealers. Manufacturers sell vehicles in an industry in
which the choices of incumbents are subject to the influence of new entrants, existing
competitors, suppliers, and customers (Porter 1979). They undertake marketing activities to
influence consumer decisions, to increase their brand's market share, or to support the sales of
specific vehicle models. Strategic decisions that affect awareness, access, approval, and
ultimately adoption must also be made at the dealership level, including the geographic
distribution of vehicle models, dealership-specific promotions, sales targets, and sales practices.
2.6.2 Social systems
Consumers make vehicle purchase decisions within the context of the social systems around
them. Social systems include networks of face-to-face relationships (e.g., friends and family,
coworkers, and neighbors) as well as interactions through various forms of social media and
indirect communication (e.g., social networking sites, common informational sources).24 Social
systems influence consumer vehicle purchase decisions through social exposure, social norms,
concern for reputation, and expressed, perceived, or expected attitudes of peers. In other words,
vehicles have long been a means to express one's identity, project an image, or achieve status.
As noted, PEVs appear to serve the same role with regard to projecting one's environmental
ethos and affinity for technology. Vehicles have also served to help consumers gain social
acceptance and express conformity to group norms (e.g., Cherchi 2017).
An emerging area of inquiry delves into the power of social connectedness to enhance PEV
acceptance. Via conversations between PEV and ICEV owners in California, PEV owners
effectively teach non-adopters a "new symbol system" that enables non-adopters to give their
attention to PEVs (i.e., see, hear, and interpret the sign of PEVs), often resulting in more
the total cost of ownership was presented to potential buyers had implications for their interest in an EV, so
consumer responsiveness to cost information is likely to vary.
24 Consider, e.g., Adepetu et al.'s (2016) inclusion of several parameters describing social network size and
influence in an agent-based model of the PEV ecosystem in San Francisco, CA.
22
-------
favorable evaluations of PEVs among non-adopters (Kurani et al. 2018). In another California
study focused on consumer engagement (Meckler-Pacheco and Hardman 2022), two-thirds of
more than 5,000 Californians who purchased PEVs between 2017 and 2020 reported speaking to
family and friends prior to purchase. In the same study, 87% of PEV buyers who recalled
engaging in in-person conversations with a PEV owner prior to purchase (e.g., with friends,
family, colleagues, strangers, dealers) reported that those conversations led to more favorable
PEV attitudes.
2.6.3 Physical systems
Consumers use PEVs within the context of physical systems. These include charging
infrastructure and other Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE), such as software,
communications protocols, and electrical conductors, as well as other aspects of the built
environment, such as roads, sidewalks, curbs, and parking facilities. Aspects of infrastructure can
be altered to facilitate PEV use, and policies relating to infrastructure have implications for PEV
acceptance.
There are multiple aspects of charging infrastructure that are relevant to every stage of consumer
acceptance. These include the location, (e.g., public, workplace, home, travel routes), quantity,
density, and visibility of charging infrastructure, as well as factors such as accessibility,
convenience, level of charging, and prices. At the national and regional level, we can easily
observe that adoption and public charging co-occur (Figure 3). Whether public charging access
precedes sales or sales precede charging infrastructure installations is nuanced. For example,
Zambrano-Gutierrez et al. (2018) report evidence that support for charging infrastructure is an
important mediating variable for PEV purchase tax incentive effectiveness. With consumer
acceptance as the goal, we tend toward discussing the effect of infrastructure on consumers,
rather than the other way around.
The relationship between charging infrastructure and PEV acceptance likely varies by location,
possibly down to the neighborhood level. The effect also varies depending on the charging
speed, the distance between the charging stations and home or work locations, and whether the
consumers purchase a new or used EV (Zou, Khaloei, and Mackenzie 2020). For example, in a
study of PEV adoption across counties in Virginia, availability of DC fast charging stations was
found to be positively associated with PEV adoption, particularly for BEVs (Jia and Chen 2021).
Extending beyond first adoption to repurchase, Tal et al. (2020) found that access to Level 2
charging at home increased the likelihood of a current PEV owner purchasing a PEV again.
23
-------
Figure 3. Public charging and BEVs per 100,000 residents in the United States
Source: (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricitv locations.htinl#/find/nearest?fuel=ELEC). accessed 3/8/2022
Lastly, we highlight a challenge for PEV acceptance that combines aspects of the physical
system (primarily charging infrastructure) and consumer characteristics. Consumers' default
experience with vehicle fueling is at gas stations, so PEV charging infrastructure is often
evaluated relative to this reference point.25 For example, even in the presence of convenient,
accessible charging stations and ports, consumers may nevertheless be unaware of charging
infrastructure. They simply are not seeing it, they do not know what they are seeing, or they
incorrectly (consciously or unconsciously) mistake charging infrastructure for something else.
Such lack of awareness can cascade to deficits in perceived access and therefore to approval and
adoption. Another possible implication of using gas stations as a reference point for charging
behavior is the carryover of expectations regarding the frequency, duration, location, and level of
engagement in fueling. These long-lived fueling habits can obscure some of the advantages of
PEVs and charging, thus inhibiting approval and adoption. For example, charging can occur
frequently, for long or short periods of time, and at various locations (e.g., home, work, grocery
store) without anyone actually attending to the charging process, with the exception of plugging
in.
2.6.4 Government systems
Government systems refer to the policies that affect consumers' purchase and use of vehicles,
and the groups of decision-makers who set these policies. Another way to frame government
systems is that the array of interventions represent ways in which governments can reduce
obstacles and enhance enablers for each of the aspects of PEV acceptance. Such government
interventions may occur at the federal, state, and local levels. There are a number of dimensions
across which potential interventions may be broken down: timing (one time versus recurring),
impact (increase or decrease PEVs' attractiveness to consumers), form (financial versus non-
financial, targeted attribute (price-related versus other), and complementarity (which system[s]
does the intervention interact with: market, social, or physical?).
In terms of intervention impact, many PEV-related policies aim to increase the value prospect of
PEV to consumers, either by reducing the upfront cost or enhancing other aspects of PEV use.
25 See, e.g., Zou et al. (2020), where consumer preferences for EV charging times, availability, and distances from
home are evaluated in a context where a "gasoline car option is the reference alternative."
24
-------
However, there exist interventions that act as disincentives to PEV purchase as well. For
example, in a number of U.S. states, PEV owners must pay an additional annual fee for PEV
operation, above and beyond any annual vehicle registration and use fees applied to ICEVs. A
2020 study indicated that at that time, 18 states implemented annual fees for EV registration
intended to address the loss of gasoline tax revenue from PEVs, and an additional 10 states
proposed such fees. In 11 cases, existing and proposed EV fees were greater than the average
annual gas tax for a new vehicle based on estimated MY2025 fuel economy (Harto and Baker-
Branstetter 2019).
Financial interventions can be one-time or recurring and can be offered across different levels of
government.26 Common one-time financial interventions include rebates and tax credits, which
act to reduce the purchase price differential between a PEV and a similar ICEV model. Recurring
financial interventions can take the form of waived fees for parking or toll road access. Non-
financial interventions affect the potential value of PEVs to consumers across other vehicle or
system aspects. Common examples include access to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or
special PEV parking.
Interventions generally target one or more of the previously mentioned systems (i.e., market,
social, physical). Market systems can be influenced by any of the financial interventions
discussed above, as well as any policies or choices that reduce manufacturer barriers to
producing PEVs. Similarly, interventions that affect fuel prices (both gasoline and electricity)
will affect the value proposition of PEVs. Interventions complementing physical systems include
policies that encourage installation of public charging and support free or reduced cost charging
or free and/or conveniently located parking for PEVs. Interventions complementing social
systems often focus on the ways in which information on PEVs is disseminated and the accuracy
and interpretations of this information. Examples include the provision of cost calculators to help
consumers determine if a PEV is likely to be cost effective for their specific travel patterns and
needs (e.g., Sanguinetti, Alston-Stepnitz, and Cimene 2020) or showcase events to allow for
firsthand experience with PEVs (e.g., Singer 2020).
The remainder of this report iterates through the 4-A's—awareness, access, approval, and
adoption—delving into the measures and metrics associated with each aspect, the state and
dynamics of these measures, consumer proclivities, challenges and opportunities, and enablers
and obstacles.
3. AWARENESS
PEV awareness encompasses consumer recognition of and knowledge regarding PEVs. A PEV-
aware consumer recognizes a PEV when they see one and/or has a general understanding of the
difference between PEVs and ICEVs. A consumer who is aware of PEVs generally knows about
available makes and models, has a somewhat accurate idea of the attributes and features
available on PEV models (e.g., reasonable expectation of range), and understands that the fueling
of PEVs is different from that of ICEVs. PEV awareness exists along a continuum from the
26 We demonstrate through the scientific literature that financial incentives do influence acceptance positively. We
also note that the literature explores financial incentives in detail including magnitude of behavioral effects,
appropriate size of financial incentives, cost effectiveness, emissions outcomes, etc. We deemed these specific
topics to be out scope as they speak more directly to policy design questions and/or environmental impacts.
25
-------
broad and general (e.g., PEVs are powered by electricity rather than gas, recognition of the most
common models) to the highly nuanced (e.g., accurate knowledge of range, charge time,
purchase cost, and available incentives). Awareness also extends to recognition and
understanding of charging infrastructure.
3.1 Measures & Metrics
Awareness or knowledge about PEVs is not easily observable and therefore almost exclusively
measured as reported by consumers. Most studies address this topic by asking questions related
to familiarity with PEVs and PEV models, PEV technology, PEV incentives, and PEV fueling
and operating costs. Common framings of PEV consumer awareness include:
• Belief they have been in close proximity to a PEV (i.e., they can recognize one when they
see it)
• Belief they have seen PEV chargers in the course of their regular travel activities
• Ability to name specific PEV makes and models
• Understanding of the differences between how BEV, PHEV, HEV, and ICEV are fueled
• Accurate assessment of the range and recharging time of PEVs available on the market
• Knowing someone in their social circle who owns a PEV
• Having firsthand experience with a PEV (i.e., has been the driver or passenger in one)
These measures and metrics are generally reported in terms of percentage of a survey sample or
projected percentage of a population (e.g., percent of respondents who can correctly name a PEV
model currently available on the market). In some cases, accuracy of knowledge of PEV metrics
is reported, such as the difference between respondent's reported estimate of PEV range or
charging time and the actual measures based on vehicle statistics.
3.2 State of Awareness
PEV awareness ranges from abstract and low to concrete and high. Considering the most basic
forms of awareness, studies have tracked consumer-reported sightings of PEVs and EVSE over
the course of their regular travel. Singer (2016) found that across a representative survey sample
of the U.S. population, 49% of respondents reported having seen PEVs in parking lots through
the course of their regular travel activities; a similar percentage was found in the 2017 update of
the work as well (Singer 2017). Respondents were less likely to have reported having been in
proximity to EVSE, with 18% reporting that they were aware of charging infrastructure on their
regularly driven routes (Singer 2016). Reporting on pre-event awareness among participants in a
series of PEV ride-and-drive events across the U.S., Singer (2020) found a similar level of
recognition of PEVs over the course of everyday activities (44%). The 2020 study also reported
on consumer exposure to PEVs through advertisements (36% of respondents) and basic
knowledge of tax incentives for PEV purchases (34% of respondents). In 2022, Meckler and
Hardman report that 50% of survey respondents in California reported awareness of PEV
advertisements.
Considering a somewhat more specified level of PEV awareness and knowledge of vehicle
attributes, Singer (2016) reported that 48% of respondents could name a specific PEV
26
-------
make/model then available on the market.27 However, this moderate level of awareness has not
been universally found across surveys; a survey conducted in California (Kurani 2019) found
that three-quarters of prospective vehicle buyers could not correctly name a BEV model, and for
those who could, name recognition was limited to a few makes and models (e.g., Teslas, Nissan
Leaf). In the 2021 Cox Automotive Path to EV Adoption Study, "83% of respondents were
aware that Tesla sells EVs; just 44% were aware that Ford does ... 37% of survey respondents
knew the Leaf existed, .. .69% of current EV shoppers were unsure if Chevrolet even makes an
EV" despite the Bolt being the "third-best-selling EV in America" (Cox Automotive 2021).
Respondents demonstrated a similar lack of knowledge of available PHEV models. In addition,
Consumer Reports (2020) found that even though almost all respondents across a 2020 U.S.
survey of knowledge about and interest in PEVs stated that they had heard of PEVs, 68% of
them stated that they "don't know much" about PEVs. Furthermore, when asked why they have
not yet adopted a PEV, 30% of respondents stated that they "don't know enough about EVs to
buy one."
Direct experience with PEVs remains fairly uncommon as compared to more generalized and
less tangible forms of awareness. In Kurani's (2019) California survey, only 2.5% of respondents
expressed a self-reported "high level of familiarity" with PEVs. Respondents similarly lacked
awareness about available incentives that could partially offset PEV prices (Kurani 2019). Singer
(2020) reported that 26% of respondents at PEV ride-and-drive events held in 2016 had
previously sat in a PEV, while 22% had a neighbor with a PEV, and only 9% currently or
previously owned a PEV. These ride-and-drive events took place in three cities across the U.S.
(Pacific Northwest, Midwest, Northeast); online surveys were conducted before and after the
events. It should be noted that these values are likely to be higher than for the general U.S.
population, as this survey sample self-selected into the events, demonstrating a base level of
awareness and interest in PEVs. Across some metrics of awareness, increases have been
observed over recent years. For example, based on multi-year national surveys conducted by
NREL about consumer experiences and acceptance of PEVs between 2015 and 2020, the fraction
of respondents who reported having sat in, having driven, or having a neighbor with a PEV has
grown significantly (Singer 2020; 2016; 2017). This is salient to further stages of PEV
acceptance as well, as respondents with firsthand exposure to PEVs also express higher interest
in considering a PEV in their next vehicle purchase.
3.3 Enablers of Awareness
Consumers can gain awareness of PEVs through exposure to and interaction with the vehicles,
PEV adopters, and charging infrastructure; such exposure can come from casual contact with
PEVs and their infrastructure or through more deliberate interventions, such as outreach and
tools. Exposure to PEVs contributes to awareness and serves to motivate later stages of
acceptance. For any new technology, exposure helps to legitimize and normalize the technology
in consumers' minds, and may lead to, for example, a reduction in perceived risk and uncertainty
surrounding the new technology. An increase in awareness of PEV technology is positively
correlated with the likelihood that a consumer will consider a PEV as an option for future
purchase (e.g., Kurani, Caperello, and TyreeHageman 2016; Turrentine, Hardman, and Garas
2018).
27 In the 2017 update to this report, Singer found that 46% of respondents could name a specific PEV model.
27
-------
Enhancing consumer exposure to PEVs often requires some proximity to the technology
(physical exposure) and/or interactions with people who use the technology (social exposure).
These different types of public visibility are also referred to as "peer effect" or "network effect,"
and studying their impact at both home and work locations is thought to be critical in estimating
the spatial distribution of PEV exposure and uptake (Chakraborty, Buch, and Tal 2021).
Exposure to PEVs can also occur through media (e.g., advertising, information campaigns, social
media); while these avenues do not allow for tangible experience with the vehicles and their
attributes, they do reinforce PEV normalization. Seeing public chargers in regularly visited
locations also can raise awareness of PEVs and contribute to the normalization of PEVs and
electric charging.
Exposure to PEVs varies dramatically across geographies, at both the state level and more
granularly. Across regions of the United States, Singer (2020) identified higher awareness of
PEVs (e.g., seeing them in parking lots, having a neighbor who owns one, firsthand experience
with one) in the Pacific Northwest as compared to the Northeast and Midwest. For example,
within California, DeShazo (2017) found that neighborhoods in the top quartile of income had
more than 10 times the number of PEVs as neighborhoods in the bottom quartile. Within the
same study, the share of single-family homes in an area was also found to correlate with the
adoption of PEVs, and thus exposure of residents to PEVs on a regular basis. Another study
focused on PEV adoption in California showed that one additional BEV or PHEV within a one-
mile radius of a Census block group is associated with an increase in BEV sales by 0.2 percent in
the block group (Chakraborty et al. 2022), reinforcing the finding that exposure is linked to PEV
awareness and subsequent stages of acceptance. Proximity to PEVs in one's own neighborhood
heightens a consumer's awareness of the technology, which ultimately helps lead to adoption.
More intentionally, a number of interventions provide information that can help to raise levels of
PEV awareness—among those with some positive knowledge of PEVs and with consumers with
little or incorrect knowledge about them. Such interventions can take the form of intentional
exposure, education, and/or marketing. As discussed above, additional exposure to PEV can help
to normalize the technologies for consumers, such that they will view them as viable purchase
options. Education focuses on increasing and improving the accuracy of consumer knowledge
regarding PEVs and EVSE. While marketing from PEV manufacturers can raise awareness of
PEVs generally and the marketed models in particular, marketing focuses on brand and model
differentiation, rather than helping consumers to understand differences and similarities between
PEVs and ICEVs in general.
Outreach events—which provide drivers a chance to closely examine PEVs, interact with people
familiar with the technology, and often take test drives—provide tangible exposure to PEVs.
These events do yield positive pre- versus post-event changes in consumer attitudes toward PEV,
but they also generally attract people with at least some level of knowledge about and interest in
PEVs already (Singer 2020). Thus, these events are less likely to draw the attention of and
engage individuals with little or no awareness of PEVs.
On the other hand, approaches such as online calculators can be used to enable greater consumer
awareness of PEVs among those new to or misinformed about them. By enabling users to
incorporate details about their personal driving habits and preferences, these tools give them
greater insight into the ways PEVs can benefit them. They help to overcome low consumer
awareness generally and low accuracy of PEV-related knowledge (e.g., battery range, cost to
28
-------
charge, types and functions of charging infrastructure) in particular. Even the act of using the
calculator can increases awareness of PEV performance (e.g., Sanguinetti, Alston-Stepnitz, and
Cimene 2020).
General marketing campaigns familiarize consumers with the range of PEV vehicles available on
the market and convey basic information about their attributes. While such campaigns primarily
aim to differentiate and encourage purchase of a manufacturer's models, they do increase PEV
exposure of those consumers who engage with the campaign. In a survey of recent Californian
PEV adopters, Meckler-Pacheco and Hardman (2022) examined common outreach methods used
by PEV manufacturers to engage with potential buyers. They found that television, printed
media, and social media ads were the most common advertisement methods respondents recalled
seeing. They also identified differences across manufacturers in terms of consumer engagement
strategies employed. For example, Tesla owners had significantly lower awareness of
advertisements of electric vehicles than owners of vehicles from other manufacturing groups, and
Tesla owners also reported seeking information from social media and YouTube at a significantly
higher rate than non-Tesla PEV owners. These results are notable but unsurprising since Tesla does
not advertise via traditional media.
Education about PEV attributes and potential consumer benefits is a public good, and thus likely
to be under-provided by the market. Each PEV manufacturer has incentive to promote their own
vehicle models, but not to do additional work to promote PEVs generally, which could benefit
their competitors. Moving toward a scenario of greater consumer awareness of PEVs can be
enabled through additional intentional PEV exposure and general education regarding PEV
attributes and options available on the market, and the ways in which they compare to ICEVs.
3.4 Obstacles to Awareness
Obstacles are often, but not always, the flip side of enablers. In terms of PEV awareness,
obstacles can stem from a range of factors: the consumer's proximity to the vehicles and their
EVSE, how distinguishable the PEVs around them are from ICEVs, or how easily and quickly a
consumer can obtain and assimilate new information.
For many consumers, awareness of PEVs begins with recognition of the vehicles, which leads to
the question: are PEVs easy to visually identify? Various survey and interview studies ask
respondents if they recall seeing or being near a PEV in the course of their regular activities.
Given the current number of PEVs sold each year, it is likely that the majority of respondents
have in fact been near one, but depending on the vehicle's styling and the persons' level of
knowledge, they may not have distinguished it from other vehicles. While a PEV that closely
resembles an ICEV may be appealing to many consumers (i.e., enable PEV approval), it may
present an obstacle to PEV awareness thus inhibiting acceptance generally and the establishment
of new social norms specifically. As new norms emerge regarding PEVs, average buyers are
more likely to think of PEVs as normal and uncontroversial.
Across manufacturers and models, PEVs differ greatly in how they are visually distinguishable
from conventional vehicles. Some are highly stylized and clearly marked with "EV" or "PHEV"
labels, incorporate an "e" prefix or suffix into the model name, or otherwise highlight the electric
aspect of the vehicle through a model name relating to electricity or iconography hinting at
29
-------
electricity.28 Others look virtually identical to their ICEV counterparts and are only revealed to
be PEVs after careful inspection. Even in cases where PEVs have some visual differentiation and
signage, it is important to consider that understanding of PEVs requires knowledge and
interpretation of a specific set of signs and symbols (Kurani et al. 2018). Knowledge of PEVs
underpins the symbolic and emotive meanings that consumers associate with PEVs, which have
been found to influence their approval and adoption (e.g., Morton, Anable, and Nelson 2016),
whereby obstacles to PEV awareness may influence further stages of PEV acceptance as well.
Consumer awareness of PEVs will be affected by common cognitive factors such as attention to
information, receptivity or susceptibility to information sources, and information processing
ability. A lack of specific knowledge about PEVs increases the likelihood that a consumer will
act on other information and impulses; under such circumstances, the opposition between vehicle
shapes that look "environmentally friendly" and those that look "safe" observed by Bi et al.
(2017) is likely to steer consumers away from PEVs.
4. ACCESS
We define PEV access as the affordable, proximal, clear, and convenient purchase and use of
vehicles, charging, and PEV- and EVSE-related incentives. Access to PEVs encapsulates both
physical availability and affordability of PEVs and EVSE. For an individual consumer, there are
multiple dimensions to physical availability of PEVs. First, there is the issue of distance from
their residence and regularly traveled routes to vehicle dealerships, as well as the variety and
density of vehicle dealerships within close proximity.29 Second, the stock of specific vehicle
models, including the number and variety of PEVs, can vary substantially across dealerships. For
potential buyers in areas devoid of PEVs, there is not only an absence of exposure to PEVs but
also no or very few opportunities for firsthand experience with them. Third, the potential for a
long waiting period before receiving a vehicle also makes PEVs less appealing to some
consumers, especially if the need to acquire a new vehicle is urgent. Access to PEV
infrastructure includes the presence of charging equipment at homes, workplaces, and along
commonly used routes of travel, along with the affordability of charging. The affordability
aspect of PEV access manifests across consumers, vehicles, and systems, and oftentimes they
interplay with each other, encompassing PEV MSRPs, available incentives,30 future savings
discounting, volatility in electricity prices, charging tariffs, and PEV use fees.
28 We note, however, that many of these vehicle labels and iconography are not standardized and may be confusing
to consumers, particularly in the case of abbreviations that could imply the use of electricity.
29 Currently, the vast majority of new vehicle sales occur at dealerships, and pre-purchase test drives are common,
particularly when a consumer is considering a vehicle with which they are unfamiliar. These tendencies may change
over time, making the consumer-dealership interaction and its importance to the purchase process continuing topics
of interest.
30 Available incentives at the access stage is distinct from the awareness of incentives discussed at the awareness
stage. Here access to incentives refers to eligibility for incentives and the feasibility of obtaining them. For example,
the Federal tax credit only applies for those for whom their tax liability exceeds the tax credit. Some incentives
require substantial and complex paperwork that some consumers may find insurmountable. Furthermore, some PEV
incentives and benefits, such as HOV lane access and free parking, are irrelevant to some consumers.
30
-------
4.1 Measures & Metrics
We categorize PEV access in terms of physical access and affordability of PEVs and EVSE.
Physical access is often measured in terms of:
• counts per region (e.g., number of public charging stations or number of car dealerships
in a county or state);
• distances (e.g., miles between charging stations, miles to the nearest car dealership);
• counts normalized by population (e.g., charging stations per 100,000 residents); or
• percentages of the population (e.g., percent of population with parking access near an
electrical outlet at their residence).
• PEV affordability can be measured in terms of:
• dollars a consumer is willing to pay (e.g., maximum price premium above comparable
ICEV, maximum willingness to pay in terms of PEV purchase price)
• price ranges for PEVs, or
• price differentials between PEVs and similar ICEV models.
Affordability can also be characterized in terms of purchase price with, for example, the vehicles
below a specified price point comprising an "affordable" segment. Availability, eligibility, and
sufficiency of PEV purchase incentives as well as ease of obtaining incentives also enter into the
definition of access. They are measured in terms of dollar value, "yes/no" indicators, comparison
against PEV prices, or incentive use rates.
4.2 State of Access
We consider both physical access and affordability to suitable PEVs (i.e., with attributes a
consumer wants or requires, such as a particular body style, cargo space, number of seats, towing
capability, etc.) and convenient EVSE (i.e., at home or work, along regular travel routes, etc.). In
terms of physical availability, expanding from a handful of models in the early 2010s, Consumer
Reports stated that there will be approximately 100 BEV models available on the U.S. market by
model year 2025, alongside expanding options for PHEVs as well (Preston and Bartlett 2021).
This upcoming cohort of PEVs includes models in vehicle body types not previously available or
with few options, including pickup trucks (e.g., Ford F-150 Lightning, GMC Sierra EV), midsize
to large SUVs (e.g., GMC Hummer EV, Mazda MX-30), and vans (e.g., Ford e-Transit) (Preston
and Bartlett 2021).
4.2.1 Vehicle Availability
The number of PEVs sold has increased dramatically over the same time period, growing from
under 10,000 vehicles annually in 2011 to approximately 300,000 in 2020 (Bureau of
Transportation Statistics 2021). While growing, the number of PEVs sold and available for sale
still represents a small share of the total U.S. LDV market: approximately 1.7% for model year
2019 and 2.2% for model year 2020. Physical access to PEVs varies geographically, with the
highest number of PEVs available and sold along the West Coast (e.g., PEVs made up over 7%
of LDV sales in California in 2019) ranging to under 0.5% of LDV sales in parts of the Midwest
31
-------
and South (e.g., 0.3% of LDV sales in Oklahoma) (evadoption 2019).31 While metrics on vehicle
sales do not perfectly reflect the availability of PEV models at dealerships, they provide a
reasonable estimate that also reflects regional variability in PEV availability.
4.2.2 Infrastructure
For PEVs to be truly practical, and even convenient, consumers must have access to EVSE,
either at their residence, at places of work, or at accessible public locations (e.g., shopping center
or transit hub parking lots or garages). Reporting on a study of PEV use and charging habits, an
Idaho National Laboratory report found that study participants used home charging for their
vehicles more than 80% of the time, with the remainder coming from public or workplace
charging stations (Smart and Salisbury 2015). Similarly, Tal et al. (2020) report that nearly 80%
of charging occurred at home for a sample of nearly 8,000 BEV and PHEV drivers in California.
Chakraborty et al. (2022) reported that about one-quarter of BEV and PHEV drivers surveyed in
California had access to free workplace charging. Of note, the choice of level 1 versus level 2
charging was found to differ substantially between BEV and PHEV drivers, with BEV drivers
using level 2 home charging at approximately twice the rate of PHEV drivers (Tal et al. 2020).32
These were average findings across the whole sample. When focusing on PEV owners living in
multifamily housing, use of non-home charging locations was significantly more common (Tal et
al. 2020). These findings gain salience when paired with the finding of Singer (2016) that only
57%) of U.S. consumers state they could park their vehicle(s) near an electric outlet at home. In a
survey of residential parking and electrical access, Ge et al. (2021) found that 33%> of consumers
currently park near electrical access, and predicted that up to 75%> of consumers could gain
access to home charging through home electrical upgrades and modification to parking
behaviors. Home charging alone is unlikely to meet all the needs of every consumer. Public or
workplace charging also has a role to play and may be a necessity for some.33 Charging away
from home is likely to be desirable for many people, even among those who primarily charge at
home. Households that are unable to access electricity near their available parking areas must
charge away from home.34
As with the vehicles themselves, the current distribution of public charging stations across the
U.S. is highly uneven, in terms of both charging stations per capita and total charging stations by
state, as shown in Figure 3.35 Charging networks have expanded over time in concert with PEV
adoption, with an approximately 3.3%> increase in availability nationally in the third quarter of
2021 (Brown et al. 2021); this study also noted regional variability in network expansion, with
the highest observed in the Northeast at 4.9%. However, charging infrastructure remains sparse
across much of the landmass of the U.S. (e.g., Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and a number of other
states have fewer than 10 chargers per 100,000 residents).
31 Adoption in California exceeded 8% in 2020 (Kane 2021).
32 Retention and repurchase of PEVs was also supported by installation of level 2 home charging.
33 Building out public charging infrastructure is an objective of recent and proposed legislation, and there is research
underway to estimate public infrastructure needs. Discussion of this legislation and infrastructure projections is out
of the scope of this review.
34 Currently, charging at multi-unit housing tends to be more challenging than charging at single unit, detached
housing. How home charging can occur at multi-unit housing is often noted as an important area for innovation.
35 Bellon and Lienert (2021) also provide state-level analysis of charger densities.
32
-------
4.2.3 Affordability
Considered from a financial perspective, access hinges on the affordability of PEVs as compared
to consumers' other transportation options, with key purchase and ownership metrics being the
pricing of PEVs compared to consumers' willingness to pay for PEVs; the degree to which
common interventions, such as tax credits and rebates, increase the affordability of PEVs; and
operating and maintenance costs. Regarding PEV pricing, previous and current PEV models
have not been readily available in very-low-price categories; prices range from $30,000 and up.36
PEV models currently on the market and planned for release in near-term model years vary
substantially in price, with the highest-priced BEV models from luxury brands over $100,000
and a few models somewhat under $30,000; many models of PEV fall into the price range of
$40,000 to $60,000 depending on the brand and vehicle body type. In a study of 7,000 BEV and
6,000 PHEV owners in California, Chakraborty et al. (2022) found that respondents paid
approximately $80,000 for BEVs and $40,000 for PHEVs, on average. Expectations of near-term
PEV prices vary, with some predictions of price decreases, such as Jia and Chen (2021), which
assumes that in 2024, the average price for a new BEV sedan will be $40,000, while ICEVs and
HEVs will average $22,500 and $27,500, respectively.
Regarding willingness to pay, Singer (2017) found that consumer willingness to pay for PEVs
above similar ICEVs is not straightforward. The study identified a trimodal distribution with
17% of respondents willing to pay a premium for PEV over $9,000, another approximately 10%
willing to pay a premium of $4,000-$5,000, and 20% unwilling to pay any premium for a
PEV.37 There was some willingness to pay between $0 and $4,000, but to a lesser extent than the
highlighted price points. Within the same study, Singer (2017) found the mean willingness to pay
for the next vehicle purchase to be $27,000, which is less than average PEV MSRPs, but
compatible with post-incentive costs for some of the lower-priced PEV models. Importantly, the
dollar figures reported in Singer (2017) very likely combine the willingness to pay estimates of
new and used vehicle buyers. Willingness to pay is probably higher among consumers whose
next purchase is expected to be a new vehicle.38 We note that willingness to pay can vary across
consumer groups, such as the geographical differences in PEV willingness to pay between
several U.S. states and Japan explored by Tanaka et al. (2014). We also note that while
willingness to pay measures are relevant to affordability and access to PEVs, willingness to pay
measures also relate to PEV approval, which we discuss in Section 5.
Financial incentives intended to increase the affordability of PEVs include a federal tax credit
and various state and local incentives. The vast majority of states offer some form of PEV, or
EVSE incentives, in the forms of, for example, fee reductions, price rebates, tax credits, and non-
financial benefits (Figure 4) (AFDC 2022b; 2022a). The value of monetary incentives varies
36 According to Kelly Blue Book, the average price of a new car in January 2022 topped $47,000 (Tucker 2022).
Kelly Blue Book also reports that the average price of an electric vehicle in October 2021 was over $56,000
compared to the average price of a vehicle which topped $46,000 (Tucker 2021).
37 An earlier version of the study identified a similar distribution with 14% of respondents willing to pay a premium
for PEV over $9,000, another approximately 15% willing to pay a premium of $4,000-$5,000, and 26% unwilling to
pay any premium for a PEV (Singer 2016).
38 For reference, the average price of a new car in 2016 was approximately $34,000 (Rosenholtz 2016). The MSRP
of the 2016 Nissan Leaf S was approximately $29,000 before the Federal tax credit of up to $7,500 (Nissan Motor
Corporation 2015). Also in 2016, the Tesla Model 3 was introduced with a base price of approximately $36,000
before applying the Federal tax credit (Nishimoto 2019).
33
-------
substantially by state, and states also differ in whether they offer incentives in the form of a
rebate or tax credit. For example, in 2021, PEV buyers in Colorado were eligible for a $4,000
state tax credit, and qualifying PEVs in Connecticut were eligible for a rebate of $5,000
(Hartman and Shields 2021). In addition, many municipalities are incentivizing PEV acceptance
as are a number of utilities that generally offer small rebates, in the range of several hundred
dollars, for the purchase of qualified BEVs or PHEVs.39 Several studies demonstrate that
financial incentives increase PEV sales. For example, PEV incentives (reaching a combined
value of $10,000) may have increased PEV purchases by approximately 30% in California,
suggesting that incentives improved PEV affordability for a number of consumers (e.g., Jenn,
Springel, and Gopal 2018b). We further discuss financial incentives as an enabler of access in
section 4.3 and also note that for some vehicle consumers, financial incentives are more relevant
to approval than to affordability.
Number of PEV and EVSE incentives
I I 1 to 2
I 3 to 4
I 5 to 7
Hsto 13
more than 13 (n=37)
Figure 4. PEV and EVSE incentives by state.
Source: Alternative Fuels Data Center: https://afdc.energy.gov/laws.
39 A detailed summary of state and local programs is beyond the scope of this review. However, both Bui et al.
(2020) and Greschak et al. (2022) delve into PEV acceptance programs at the local level. The Alternative Fuels Data
Center provides state-level information on clean transportation laws, regulations, and funding opportunities (AFDC
2022b).
34
-------
4.3 Enablers of Access
The enablers of access to take the general form of "more of," "targeted," "tailored", and "easy."
For example, more PEVs, in more body styles (e.g., hatchback, pickup truck, sedan, SUV,
compact), with more utility and options (e.g., towing, cargo space, seating), in more locations,
and at a variety of price points (i.e., particularly lower price points) can address the vast
heterogeneity of mainstream consumers. In other words, an expansion in PEV numbers,
attributes, features, and prices means increases the opportunity that a "suitable" PEV is available
for a particular individual or household, which address access as we have defined it as well as
approval. Greater numbers of public charging stations and ports that are visible, conveniently
located, reliable, easy to use, and affordable enables access, especially among consumers who do
not have electrical access where they park at home. Visible, convenient, affordable, and easy to
use charging also enables awareness (e.g., "I see it"), approval (e.g., "Charging is easy"), and
adoption (e.g., "I feel confident that I can charge when and where I need"). For those who can
park their vehicle(s) near electrical access, a process of electrical upgrades and charging
installation that is transparent, fairly priced, and easy to obtain enables access to home charging
as well as the considerable convenience of charging at home.
Given the overlap among vehicle attributes and features that enable access and approval, we
focus here on PEV price and two paths to greater affordability of PEVs, namely production costs
and financial incentives. Advancement in battery technologies can reduce production costs,
which can lead to lower PEV prices and improved affordability. Battery-related PEV costs have
long been noted as an obstacle in reducing the cost of PEVs, and in turn as an obstacle for mass
market PEV purchases.40'41 While battery costs have decreased over the past decade, they
remain a concern (e.g., Hidrue et al. 2011; Adepetu and Keshav 2017).
As for incentives, while PEVs currently have a price premium relative to ICEV "equivalents,"
clear, timely, and easy to obtain incentives can make PEV purchase more accessible to
individuals who would not have purchased a PEV otherwise. Currently, government rebates and
tax credits have been the main measure to bring PEV prices more in line with ICEV alternatives,
but the effectiveness of those incentives is not uniform between different consumer segments,
and the amount of rebate or tax credit offered may not offset the full price premium of a PEV.42
Even with tax credits, it is still likely that PEV purchasers must support a higher initial MSRP, a
particular concern for lower-income consumers. Tax credits are of greater utility to higher-
income consumers, as their tax liability generally allows them to take full advantage of the tax
credit (e.g., Jia and Chen 2021). Other factors such as the knowledge of incentives can contribute
to the heterogeneity in response to PEV incentive programs (Jenn, Springel, and Gopal 2018b).
The cost-effectiveness of government subsidies can be improved significantly when tailored to
different consumer characteristics and driving behaviors (Sheldon and Dua 2019); for example,
40 Forbes estimated that in 2015, 29% of the cost of a Tesla was due to battery cost. Though the cost has fallen, as of
2020, they estimated that 14% of the cost of a Tesla was still due to battery cost (Forbes 2021).
41 There are other relevant aspects of PEV battery production as well that affect PEV access, such as availability of
rare earth minerals required for battery production, compatibility (or lack thereof) of batteries across vehicle
manufacturers, and options for battery reuse, recycling, and replacement.
42 Sheldon et al. (2017) report that current PHEV subsidies are approximately in line with the difference between
consumer willingness to pay for PHEVs and the price gap between PHEVs and comparable ICEVs, but BEV
subsidies are an order of magnitude smaller than the difference between willingness to pay and the BEV to ICEV
price gap.
35
-------
by setting an upper bound for rebate eligibility on vehicle price and/or household income (e.g.,
DeShazo, Sheldon, and Carson 2017).
For PEV technology to reach the mass market, in particular to those who do not regularly
encounter it, dealerships and their marketing strategies play an important role (e.g., Yavorsky,
Honka, and Chen 2020).43 It is common for a consumer's initial firsthand experience of PEV
technology to occur at a car dealership (Zarazua de Rubens, Noel, and Sovacool 2018). Findings
from Matthews et al. (2017b) suggest that a salesperson's positive attitude and the availability of
PEV models at the dealerships are the main success factors in increasing the likelihood of a
consumer considering a PEV purchase. In short, access and enthusiasm at the point of sale are
critically important to PEV acceptance and ultimately adoption. Matthews et al. (2017b) further
suggest that the importance of dealerships in promoting PEV adoption could be usefully
considered in policy formation.
Among the key enablers of consumer's ability to charge at home can be an attractive feature of a
PEV, but whether it is or not depends on the consumer's ability (or perceived ability) to do so. If
a consumer's home can support PEV charging, being able to charge a vehicle rather than having
to visit a gas station is a positive feature. However, the consumer must know it is possible, be
motivated to adapt their space and behavior to make it happen, and be able to arrange and afford
electrical upgrades and charger installation. This can be facilitated by normalizing and
simplifying the charger installation process.
However, in a future where PEVs make up a large fraction of the vehicle fleet, a smaller
percentage of PEV owners would have consistent residential charging access; therefore, more
high-speed public charging infrastructure is needed to complement the private charging
infrastructure (Ge et al. 2021). Many direct and indirect factors influence the economics of
public charging infrastructures, and they can interact with each other. For example, the
deployment of public charging infrastructure goes hand in hand with battery technology
advancement, as high capacity batteries at a reasonable price may reduce the need for a high
density of charging infrastructure. The type of charging infrastructure influences the charging
time, which in turn affects PEV consumers' driving behavior in terms of lengths of trips they
choose to embark on (Zhang et al. 2018). Government support can play a critical role in
promoting the development of public charging infrastructure. The recently passed Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law includes up to $7.5 billion to expand infrastructure for vehicle charging and
alternative fuels, with a target of 500,000 chargers by 2030, including $2.4 billion designated for
infrastructure support in underserved areas, such as rural and economically disadvantaged
communities (U.S. Department of Energy 2022; White House Briefing 2021).
4.4 Obstacles to Access
As suggested by the previous section, the two greatest obstacles to access are the physical
availability of PEVs and EVSE and PEV affordability. This section details these and other
obstacles more fully.
43 Yavorsky et al. (2020) noted that while the average number of consumer dealership visits has decreased from
approximately 4.6 in 1986 to 1.3 in 2016, they find that the benefits of dealership visits are substantial.
36
-------
For an individual consumer, there are multiple dimensions to physical availability of PEVs. First,
there is the issue of distance from their residence and regularly traveled routes to vehicle
dealerships, as well as the variety and density of vehicle dealerships within close proximity.
Second, the stock of specific vehicle models, including the number and variety of PEVs, can
vary substantially across the dealerships selling different manufacturers' vehicles. For potential
buyers in areas devoid of PEVs, there is a barrier to firsthand experience with the vehicles, which
impedes approval and adoption as well. At this time, a relatively long waiting period between
ordering and receiving new vehicles, including PEVs and particularly new or popular models, is
another factor that inhibits access to PEVs for some consumers (Matthews et al. 2017b). This
delay in access, at least in the short term, could play out in the approval and adoption stages,
making a PEV less appealing to some consumers or acting as a barrier to purchase since some
consumers cannot or will not wait. Third and as mentioned earlier, the historical and arguably
current lack of PEV model options in certain vehicle body types may present an obstacle to
access for certain groups of consumers. Wang et al. (2022), Spurlock et al. (2019), and Fujita et
al. (2022) noted that consumer groups with differing characteristics (e.g., gender, income, family
structure) exhibited differences in their propensities to prefer particular vehicle body types and
fuel types. Higgins et al. (2017) found differences in PEV interest across consumers who were
considering different vehicle types.
Physical proximity to PEV chargers is also a key aspect of access. Several papers provide
statistics regarding the importance of additional chargers or include survey questions measuring
agreement with statements that there are "too few chargers" (e.g., Jia and Chen 2021). While
most new PEV buyers prefer private charging units at their home, the expansion of public
charging infrastructure is critical for spurring PEV adoption, by helping owners overcome
concerns about range and improving access to charging stations at a large scale (Zou, Khaloei,
and Mackenzie 2020). The disproportionate distribution of residential charging in single-family
homes also highlights an equity issue of access. Currently the majority of PEVs are owned by
residents of single-family homes, and access to residential charging remains challenging for
multi-family dwelling residents and renters (Ge et al. 2021).
Regarding the affordability of PEV access, consumers tend to discount (in some cases quite
highly) future value streams, including energy cost savings associated with PEVs, and this
presents a challenge. A consumer may be likely to receive a net benefit from switching from an
ICEV to a PEV, but if they make their purchase decision while strongly discounting future
savings they may not perceive a PEV to be affordable, which will reduce their approval of PEVs
(Morton, Anable, and Nelson 2016). A factor in consumer perception of the potential future
savings of a PEV is the consumer's anticipated electricity prices. In a dynamic choice model that
incorporates the evolution of fuel prices, Liu and Cirillo (2017) found that changes in electricity
prices have a significant impact on the purchase of electric vehicles. Affordability also
encompasses the challenges associated with consumers who cannot meet the PEV purchase
price. High purchase price is ranked among the top barriers for PEV adoption. Adepetu and
Keshav (2017) suggest that improving PEV affordability is more important than increasing
battery performance. Despite advances in battery technology and reduction in battery cost, the
price of PEVs is still higher than similar ICE models. Affordability in terms of the cost of
charging, and differential pricing between private and public charging stations places a higher
financial burden on EV owners who rely on public charging (i.e., those who do not own a house
or have access to garage, driveway, or curbside parking). These affordability issues further
hinder PEV access, and therefore adoption, among those groups of consumers.
37
-------
Relatedly, incentives can reduce total price by many thousands of dollars and enable access.
However, perceptions of incentives can inhibit the effectiveness of financial incentives. First,
consumers do not necessarily view a tax credit or rebate in the same way, nor do they all equally
value post-purchase price reductions (e.g., tax credit or rebate) and upfront price reduction as
(e.g., Higgins et al. 2017). Additionally, Jia and Chen (2021) noted that while lower-income
households can benefit from financial incentives, they may not be able to fully utilize a PEV-
related tax credit given their level of tax liability. They also note that lower-income households
tend to be more sensitive to purchase price than incentive amount. Furthermore, the factors used
to determine a federal tax credit can be complex. This potentially contributes to uncertainty
rather than confidence for a consumer trying to determine the affordability of a given PEV. For
example, prior to the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in October 2022, the federal
tax credit for a MY2022 Prius Prime PHEV was $4,502, while the credit for a MY2022 RAV4
Prime PHEV was $7,500 (Internal Revenue Service 2022). Further, the federal PEV tax credit
had phased out for manufacturers whose sales had surpassed 200,000 PEVs, meaning that
consumers also had to know the status of a given manufacturer relative to the threshold. The new
provisions of the IRA remove the manufacturer sales threshold, but add additional requirements
pertaining to the battery content, place of manufacture, household income, and MSRP. Thus,
consumers must also determine the status of a given vehicle relative to these requirements, as
well as know the amount and availability of the credit, assuming they know about the tax credit
at all. Lastly, a patchwork of state and local financial incentives adds yet another layer of
information that could leave some consumers uncertain about the ultimate amount the vehicle
will cost them.
Another potential obstacle to PEV access, especially in the near term, are special EV operation
fees that have emerged in some states. As of 2020, 18 states had existing annual fees for EV
operation and 10 had proposed them (Harto and Baker-Branstetter 2019). These fees are intended
to make up for a reduction in gas tax revenues. However, in 11 cases, existing and proposed EV
fees are greater than the average annual gas tax for a new ICEV, based on MY2025 fuel
economy assumption. Several states recently increased EV fees, and proposed fees are more
likely than existing fees to be greater than the expected gas tax burden, leading to an increasing
trend in this obstacle (Harto and Baker-Branstetter 2019). EV fees higher than expected gas tax
burdens present an additional obstacle to consumers considering a PEV purchase. Plus,
substantial geographic variations in EV fees, ranging from 0% to over 300% of the expected gas
tax revenue of an ICEV, may reinforce existing geographic variation in PEV acceptance. The
general pattern appears to be that states with high PEV adoption to date are also those with no or
low EV fees either existing or proposed as of 2020.
5. APPROVAL
Approval occurs when PEVs are perceived, at minimum, as substitutes for other vehicles. A
consumer who approves of PEVs expresses a positive assessment of PEVs, considers purchasing
a PEV, reports intent to purchase a PEV, and or expresses a willingness to pay for PEVs or PEV
benefits. Though clearly related, stated approval of PEVs does not automatically translate to
adoption Jia and Chen (2021). Generally, it is well-known that intention and action are different
and can be very far apart indeed (e.g., Ajzen 1991). Thus, it is unsurprising that approval is
generally observed at substantially higher rates than PEV adoption. This suggests that approval is
not only distinct from adoption, but obstacles and enablers differ as well.
38
-------
5.1 Measures & Metrics
PEV approval is elicited primarily through surveys and interviews, often taking the form of
"yes/no" answers or agreement scales regarding measures including:
• stated willingness to consider a PEV in the next vehicle purchase (e.g., Singer 2017;
Consumer Reports 2020; Degirmenci and Breitner 2017 [in the context of Germany]),
• plan to purchase a PEV as their next vehicle (e.g., Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty
2019), or
• agreement with statements such as "PEVs are as good as gasoline fueled vehicles" (e.g,
Singer 2017). The format often takes the form of "yes/no" or agreement scales.
•
Another metric of PEV approval is consumer willingness to pay (e.g., Egbue, Long, and
Samaranayake 2017; Nazari, Mohammadian, and Stephens 2019; Greene et al. 2020; Sheldon,
DeShazo, and Carson 2017), measured in terms of:
• the monetary amount an individual says they are willing to pay for a PEV,
• the additional amount a consumer is willing to pay for a PEV relative to a similar
alternative vehicle,
• the amount they are willing to pay for PEV-associated benefits or specific attributes,
• willingness to pay for their next vehicle in general (as compared to PEV market prices),
or
• willingness to pay for public PEV charging infrastructure.
5.2 State of Approval
Regardless of the metrics described above and the range of estimates that we discuss below,
approval appears to be strong, increasing, and spreading. In a national survey conducted between
2015 and 2017, nearly half of respondents stated both PHEV and BEVs were just "as good as" or
"better than" traditional gasoline vehicles. Between 2015 and 2017, Singer (2017) also found
that a stable fraction of respondents stated they would consider PHEVs for their next vehicle
purchase (24%). In addition, the percentage of respondents stating that BEVs are "not as good
as" gas vehicles decreased over the study period, suggesting that the approval for PEVs
increased (Singer 2017). Another study based on two national surveys of potential vehicle
consumers in the 21 largest American cities found that the intent to purchase a PEV increased
markedly between 2011 and 2017 (Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty 2019).44'45
Survey-based assessment of approval varies substantially across consumer characteristics. When
investigating the variations in PEV perception by respondent segments, Singer (2017) found that
44 Examining intent to purchase along a 10 point scale (1 - not likely to purchase PEV to 10 - very likely to purchase
PEV), Carley etal. (2019) observed an average increase in this metric ofbetween0.5 and 1.5. Given that 2011
values for this metric were in the range of 2 to 3, this represents a substantial increase.
45 Though these studies are within the scope of our specified publication range, we acknowledge that the data are
somewhat dated. However, there appears to be no reason to believe that approval has decline since these data were
collected. Rather, with the introduction of longer range vehicles and more body styles, for example, approval has
likely grown.
39
-------
single-vehicle households and new vehicle purchasers have a higher likelihood of considering
PEVs "as good as" or "better than" ICEVs. Singer (2017) also found that those who were aware
of nearby charging stations and of PEV tax incentives were more likely to report PEV being "as
good as" or "better than" traditional gasoline vehicles. Those individuals were also more likely
to state that they would consider a future PEV purchase. In addition, approval of PEVs was
highest among respondents younger than 35 years old and with high educational attainment (i.e.,
college degree). In combination with adoption statistics, the interests and actions of younger and
older new vehicle consumer illustrate a notable difference between approval and adoption.
Specifically, interest in and approval of PEVs tends to be higher among young respondents in
stated preference studies, but current adoptions to date have concentrated in higher-income,
middle-aged consumers (e.g., Jia and Chen 2021). Furthermore, respondents making less than
$50,000 a year show higher approval of PHEVs when compared to other income groups, a
finding that does not align with the demographics of current PEV adopters (Singer 2017). These
findings suggest that interest and approval do not necessarily align with ability to pay.
Stated willingness to pay for PEVs also varies considerably. For example, willingness to pay for
a PEV ranges from $0 to over $10,000 above the price of a comparable ICEV (e.g., Singer
2016), with common values between $1000 and $5000.46 As with non-monetary expressions of
approval, there are notable relationships between the characteristics of prospective buyers and
the expressed willingness to pay. For example, gender, education level, ethnicity, household size,
and income level were found to be influential factors for willingness to pay and BEV adoption
(e.g., Nazari, Mohammadian, and Stephens 2019).47 In a comparative study across four U.S.
states (i.e., California, Texas, Michigan, and New York), Tanaka et al. (2014) found that
willingness to pay for fuel cost reduction, range, emissions reductions, alternative fuel station
availability, and home charging installation varied considerably across states. For example,
Californians were willing to pay substantially more for fuel cost reductions than respondents
from the other 3 states. Compared to the other three states, Michigan respondents were willing to
pay markedly more for additional range and for emissions reductions, but Michigan respondents
had notably lower willingness to pay for the availability of alternative fuel stations than
respondents from other states.48
5.3 Enablers of Approval
As with awareness and access, enablers of PEV approval rely upon the characteristics of
consumers, the attributes and features of vehicles, and the context in which consumers form
assessments of PEVs relative to their purchase criteria. To date, PEV approval appears to have
been enabled largely by strong associations between pre-existing consumer characteristics and
PEV attributes such as environmental ethos and environmental performance; technology acuity
and vehicle innovation; high income and high purchase price; sensitivity to operating costs and
lower cost of ownership; single unit housing and home charging; multi-vehicle household and
46 In a 2011 study, Hidrue et al. (2011) estimated that the acceptable price premium for electric vehicles ranged from
$6,000 to $16,000 above gasoline vehicles. These values relative to more recent findings highlight the dynamic and
diverse contexts in which these WTP values are estimated and the difficulty in comparing these quantities within
and over timeframes.
47 Nazari et al. (2019) estimated the endogenous effect of willingness to pay on BEV adoption using the 2016
California Vehicle Survey. Results showed that having higher willingness to pay for the next vehicle is positively
correlated with the likelihood of adopting a BEV, with all else equal
48 Tanaka et al. (2014) also compared U.S. and Japanese consumers.
40
-------
range or charging concerns; and so on (e.g., Axsen, Bailey, and Castro 2015; Kurani 2019; Raut,
Bhasin, and Kamble 2011).49 As noted in Section 5.2, PEV approval is also enabled by the
availability of incentives and charging infrastructure as well as exposure to and experience with
PEVs (Singer 2017).50 More generally, individuals with higher levels of awareness of and
greater levels of access to PEVs, PEV infrastructure, and pro-PEV policies also have higher
levels of PEV approval. In other words, awareness and access enable approval. Thus, the
enablers of awareness and access indirectly enable approval; awareness and access are
intermediaries. This appears in the scientific literature via studies where the outcome of interest
is an approval variable (e.g., willingness to pay), factors related to awareness and access are
measured, and the intermediaries of awareness and access are not measured. Though not parsed
in the scientific literature, it seems reasonable that some enablers of awareness and access may
also directly influence approval.
Importantly, PEV approval is not limited to individuals with characteristics currently correlated
with PEV ownership, who have accurate information, and/or reside in locations with supportive
conditions. And many consumers who possess accurate knowledge of PEVs, have characteristics
common to current PEV owners, and live in locations that with supportive conditions may
nevertheless have no intention to purchase a PEV.
5.3.1 Alignment between Attributes and Criteria
Critical among enablers at the approval stage is the quality of PEV-related knowledge generated
through exposure, advertising, and education. This knowledge, especially of the advantages and
disadvantages of PEVs, underpins consumers' attitudes toward PEVs and their ultimately their
purchase decisions. PEV advantages discussed in Section 2.5 include environmental
performance, driving performance, ownership costs, and charging convenience. Disadvantages
include vehicle purchase price, range and charging concerns, and uncertainty related to the
battery.
While these are generally accepted pros and cons, how the advantages and disadvantages of
PEVs manifest for individual consumers is what really matters to individual consumers. For
example, consumers are often concerned with the image their vehicle projects. A vehicle that
personifies concern for the environment may be desirable, as demonstrated by the environmental
ethos expressed by a subset of PEV adopters and arguably projected by some PEVs (e.g., Nissan
Leaf). For other PEV adopters, concrete environmental impacts may be important, but a vehicle
that projects "environmental friendliness" may be undesirable. Among U.S. consumers between
2011 and 2017, Carley et al. (2019) observed, a decrease in the importance ascribed to the
appearance of acting in an environmentally friendly way, along with an increase in the
importance of reducing negative impact on the environment. The motivations around these
aspects of PEV environmental attributes differ (e.g., environmental image and environmental
performance), and the precise framing of "environment" has implications for approval among
diverse consumers (Degirmenci and Breitner 2017). Similarly, depending on the consumer, PEV
charging can be an extraordinary convenience or extremely inconvenient. For example, owners
49 Previously, we have described consumer traits often associated with PEV acceptance as "favorable
characteristics."
50 Previously, we have described circumstances under which we observe higher levels of PEV acceptance as
"favorable conditions." We have also described the locations where PEV adoption, charging, and pro-PEV policies
co-occur as "favorable locations."
41
-------
of detached home, with ready access to off street parking, who can plug in their vehicles close to
where they already regularly park would likely find home charging to be an outsized benefit of
PEVs relative to ICEV alternatives (Ge et al. 2021). Should any of those conditions not hold,
such as regularly parking in a spot that does not have immediate access to an electrical outlet, the
benefit of home charging could be masked by the efforts necessary to plug in. And clearly, if
consumers have no regular, off-street parking location at their homes (e.g., many multi-unit
dwellings), home charging may be infeasible.
How consumers interact with vehicles and how consumers match their vehicle criteria to vehicle
attributes (discussed in depth in Section 2.5) greatly influence how PEV attributes can lead to or
inhibit PEV approval. Some consumer criteria, like image, can be quite nebulous; thus, how
vehicle attributes correspond to consumer criteria can be unclear. For other PEV attributes, the
correspondence between PEV attributes and consumer criteria is relatively straightforward. For
example, most consumers strongly weigh driving performance, value, safety, and durability in
their vehicle purchase decision (Fujita et al. 2022). PEVs are known to deliver the first two of
these important shopping criteria; driving performance (e.g., instantaneous torque, quiet ride)
and value (e.g., lower operating costs) are well-documented enablers of PEV approval. Direct
experience with PEVs and interactions with PEV adopters helps to bring the advantages of PEVs
to the fore and often leads to more positive assessments of PEVs (Singer 2016; 2017; Kurani et
al. 2018).
Another example of how consumers align vehicle criteria to vehicle attributes relates to body
style. Many consumers fix on a body style early in their vehicle purchase decision process (Fujita
et al. 2022). Early PEV models were primarily compact to midsize-sedans, which presented an
obstacle to consumers who preferred different vehicle types (e.g., X. Wang, Shaw, and
Mokhtarian 2022; Higgins, Mohamed, and Ferguson 2017). Consumer response to the recent
increase in model variety suggests that the wider range of vehicle body styles better satisfies the
criteria of a wider range of consumers (Figure 5).
100%
electric
plug-in hybrid
50%
75%
25%
0%
crossover
van
sport utility
vehicle
car
2014 2016 2018 2020 2014 2016 2018 2020
Source: Graph by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, based on data from Wards Intelligence
Figure 5. Sales of electrified light-duty vehicles by powertrain (2014-2021)
Source: EI A. 2022. https://www.eia. gov/todavinenergy/detail.php?id=51218
42
-------
As PEVs diversify, consumers will have a better chance of identifying a PEV that fits their
criteria. Increasing variety across PEV attributes (e.g., body style, range, price, towing
capability) is likely to enable approval for more consumer segments. For example, BEV range
has often been cited as an obstacle to PEV approval and adoption. However, the range of BEVs
has grown substantially in recent years, making range less of an obstacle.51 Manufacturers have
also begun to offer different ranges as an option for a given model. Assuming these trends
continue, consumers will be able to choose from many, varied PEV models that cover a rich
spectrum of attributes, features, and electric driving range.
5.3.2 Normalization of PEVs
Other enablers of approval derive from the context (i.e., physical, economic, social, and
government systems) in which consumers' attitudes toward PEV emerge and evolve. As with
awareness and access, the presence of charging infrastructure and PEV-supporting policies is
associated with higher levels of PEV approval (e.g., Jenn, Springel, and Gopal 2018b; N. Wang,
Tang, and Pan 2019 [international comparison]).52 Stated preference survey data in the U.S. have
shown that having a denser distribution of fast charging stations in a town is correlated with
higher preference for BEVs among new car buyers (Zou, Khaloei, and Mackenzie 2020), though
results differ for PHEVs and BEV. When differentiating between PHEVs and BEVs, Nazari et
al. (2019) found that the presence of more charging stations has a significant positive effect on
the preference for PHEVs but not for BEVs. Free and low-cost charging also contribute to the
intent to adopt a PEV as well as on sales (Maness and Lin 2019). In addition, the presence of
discounted, free, and/or designated PEV parking spaces has also been found to increase the intent
to adopt a PEV, as do non-financial interventions, such as HOV lane access.53'54 However, there
is variability across studies in terms of the strength of these effects, with the most notable
influence in urban areas where parking tends to be more expensive and scarce (Hardman 2019)
and traffic congestion is more common.
Similarly, social exposure, advertising, and education shape attitudes and normalize PEVs as
well as inform. However, the demands on information at the approval stage are more specific
and individualized. Information provision aimed at approval, such as online cost calculators, can
enable PEV approval by giving potential PEV purchasers a more accurate picture of how a PEV
could fit their travel habits and into their lives than they would otherwise be able to do given
their own knowledge, resources, and biases (e.g., present bias). Sanguinetti et al. (2020)
reviewed the features of online cost calculators through a multipronged process, including survey
of users and focus groups with potential buyers. They found that key features of effective cost
calculators include minimal inputs, optional specificity to a prospective buyer's location and
51 In 2016 the median of a BEVs was 83.5 miles (Vehicle Technologies Office 2016). Currently, electric vehicles
travel about 250 miles on a charge (U.C. Davis, n.d.); the typical driving range of a BEV ranges from 150 to 300
miles (Alternative Fuels Data Center, n.d.).
52 In other terms, approval derives in part from what we have described as favorable conditions and favorable
locations. Thus, we can expect that PEV approval will increase with an expansion of conditions and locations that
support PEVs acceptance.
53 In the context of Scandinavia, Langbroek et al. (2016) note high valuation of free parking and access to otherwise
restricted traffic lanes in a stated choice experiment investigating PEV policy effectiveness.
54 Financial and non-financial incentives are not limited to government actors. Some manufacturers have offered free
DC fast charging to PEV buyers. For example, Nissan offered two years of unlimited use of DC fast charging for
new Leaf buyers through 2019 and now offers a modified version of this incentive with a limit on the total cost and
number of DC charger uses (EVgo Fast Charging 2022).
-------
lifestyle, separately presenting operating cost and purchase price differences between models,
and purchase price differences with and without rebate or tax credit incentives. The credibility of
PEV information and its source also influences approval. Studies have identified firsthand
experience with a PEV as an important factor in approval, in terms of attitude toward PEV and
stated intention to purchase (Degirmenci and Breitner 2017) Interactions with PEV adopters,
especially friends and family, also lends credibility PEV information (Kurani et al. 2018).
5.4 Obstacles to Approval
Most obstacles to PEV approval are counterpoints to the enablers discussed above. Nevertheless,
some challenges for PEV adoption warrant emphasis as obstacle as well. Key obstacles to PEV
approval relate to consumers' perceptions, attitudes, reference points, uncertainties, and
anxieties. Key obstacles to PEV approval also relate to more pragmatic concerns, such as
affordability, durability, range, and infrastructure. To illustrate, we offer several examples.
Regarding perceptions, vehicle ownership and the specifics of a personal vehicle can be tied up
in a person's perception of self, status, and identity (e.g., Morton, Anable, and Nelson 2016),
which may or may not serve PEV approval.55 There is also evidence that how a consumer
perceives vehicle features may contrast with its actual functionality, thus undermining PEV
approval. Specifically, some consumers view certain vehicle designs as "safer" (e.g., those with
long, boxy front ends) and others as "more environmentally friendly" (e.g., smooth,
aerodynamic-looking designs) (Bi et al. 2017), possibly setting up a false dichotomy. Such
perceptions can give some consumers a false sense that a vehicle is not safe or is not
environmentally friendly based on its appearance or that a vehicle cannot be both safe and
environmentally superior. Regarding attitudes, individuals can reasonably hold positive and
negative assessments of PEVs simultaneously. For example, when comparing PEVs and ICEVs,
the same individual could value the time, effort, and monetary savings associated with home
charging while also doubting PEV safety and reliability (Morton, Anable, and Nelson 2016).
Whether and why the benefits of home charging outweigh concerns about reliability and safety
differ from one consumer to the next. This could make a messaging campaign, for example,
effective for one group and counterproductive for another. Regarding uncertainty, some PEV
attributes, such as range, charging practices, maintenance, and operating costs are unfamiliar to
prospective adopters by virtue of the dominance, maturity, and inertia of ICEV markets and
fueling infrastructure, but these PEV attributes are ultimately knowable in the short term. Other
uncertainties, such as battery life and infrastructure availability, are unknown in the short term
and may remain so for some time. Uncertainties, especially those related to range, infrastructure
availability, and unfamiliar practices (e.g., charging rather than fueling) precipitate anxiety.56
A few of the often-cited obstacles to approval could persist. For example, range expectations
could be especially sticky given human tendencies to evaluate new information or outcomes
relative to established information or reference points and to prefer known or existing
55 Morton et al. (2016) provide evidence that the more a consumer holds emotive and symbolic feelings relating
vehicles to status and identity, the less likely they are to approve of PEVs. However, we note that at the time this
study was conducted, only a handful of PEV models existed. The subsequent increase in the number of PEV models
across all LDV classes may lead to different results.
56 Consumer assessment of PEV attributes will be subject to such influences as incomplete information, internal and
external uncertainty, and decision-making under risk, which are discussed broadly in the field of study of consumer
behavior(e.g., Davies 2017; Kahneman and Tversky 1979).
44
-------
circumstances and practices over something new. Currently, median ICEV range per tank of fuel
is approximately 400 miles. This value serves as a natural point of comparison for BEV range
when fully charged (Vehicle Technologies Office 2016). For example, in one study, 57% of
respondents said they would consider purchasing a BEV with a range of 400 miles or less
(Singer 2017). At the same time, most consumers' daily driving needs are far lower than this. A
BEV with a shorter range would be unlikely to pose most consumers with a range limitation in
the course of regular driving. Nevertheless, consumer expectations about vehicle driving range
may persist.
Similarly, since their introduction and continuing to the present day, the purchase price of PEVs
has exceeded the price of similar ICEVs. This so-called purchase price premium will likely
remain a challenge in the short term and may be exacerbated if average prices for personal light
duty vehicles continue to increase. However, the price premium is expected to diminish over
time and effectively vanish, assuming battery costs continue to decline and as production
volumes increase. In addition, PEVs have significant potential for much lower operating costs
compared to ICEVs, given present and projected gasoline and electricity prices. Nevertheless,
the purchase price premium may continue to inhibit PEV approval, at least in the short term.57
Relatedly, the arguably premature implementation of PEV fees to make up for lost gas tax
revenues (e.g., fees explored by Harto and Baker-Branstetter 2019), stands as potential obstacle
to greater PEV approval.
57 Morton et al. (2016) noted that early studies predicting PEV demand suggest that if parity in terms of technical
performance and costs can be achieved, there may exist a substantial market for PEVs. However, we emphasize that
definitions of "cost parity" vary, parity in terms of technical performance is somewhat ambiguous and/or subjective,
and numerous other versions of parity may be also be of interest (e.g., parity in purchase price, production costs,
consumers' total cost of ownership).
45
-------
6. ADOPTION
We define adoption as the personal acquisition of a PEV via purchase or lease. It is the final
stage of PEV acceptance. Within adoption, we consider the purchase of a PEV and factors that
may impact future adoption decisions among potential consumers. Adoption is relatively simple
to observe and measure but distinguishing approval and adoption is not. Thus, to distinguish
approval from adoption we focus on the following question: If a PEV is included in a consumer's
consideration set, what factors tip the balance in favor of a PEV at the time of the purchase
decision? Importantly, within the scope of this report, we do not attempt to dive into the nuances
of post-adoption PEV usage as compared to pre-purchase expectations or ICEV usage. We do,
however, acknowledge that these behaviors represent a rich and important area of research.
6.1 Measures & Metrics
Unlike the previously discussed stages of PEV acceptance, adoption is relatively easy to define,
observe, and measure; it is often measured in terms of counts, percentages or rates, including:
• Number of vehicles purchased or leased,
• Number of vehicle registrations,
• Number of vehicles produced,
• Percentage of new vehicle sales,
• Percentage of households with PEVs, or
• Rate of PEV sales change over time.
6.2 State of Adoption
The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report states that 2.2 percent of model year 2020 light duty
vehicles produced and offered for sale in the United States were PHEV, BEV, and fuel cell
vehicles (FCVs). This was an increase from 1.7 percent in model year 2019 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2021a) and projected to be 4 percent in model year 2021 (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 2021b).58 These production data correspond to sales and registration data
cited elsewhere (e.g., Davis and Boundy 2021). Importantly, both 2020 model year production
statistics and calendar year sales statistics demonstrate growth in the PEV market that occurred
despite the sharp decline in conventional new light duty vehicle sales, from 15.3 million in 2019
to 12.7 million in 2020 (Figure 6). In addition, actual annual PEV market share in 2021 exceeded
EPA's production estimates. PEVs actually represented 4.62% (3.38% for BEVs and 1.24% for
PHEVs) of annual market share in 2021, and as of May 2022, actual PEV market share was
6.64% (5.21% for BEVs and 1.43% for PHEVs) (Alliance for Automotive Innovation 2022).
Geographic distribution of PEV sales and registrations is uneven, concentrated on the coasts and
in urban areas (evadoption 2019). This is shown in Figure 7, which illustrates the density of BEV
and PHEV vehicles by county across the U.S. (panel A and panel B, respectively). There is
substantial variation in BEV and PHEV density across the United States and even within states
with the highest rates of adoption.
CO
FCVs make up a very small portion of the market. Only 0.04 percent of all light duty AFV registrations in the
United States in 2020 were hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (AFDC 2021b).
46
-------
Figure 7. BEV and PHEV vehicle density by county (Source: https://maps.nrel.gov/transatlas)
350,000
300,000
250,000
in
$ 200,000
qj
IE 150,000
OJ
>
100,000
50,000
0 ™
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
¦ Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle ¦ Electric Vehicle
Figure 6. Light-duty vehicles sold by fuel type, PHEV and EV.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Vehicle Technologies Office Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 39, table 6.2 Available at https://tedb.ornl. gov/data/ as of May 19. 2021.
Panel A
Panel B
Battery-Electric {vehicles/5
sq miles)
47
-------
6.3 Enablers of Adoption
Because the underlying motivation for approval and adoption overlaps and varies from one
person to the next, it is impossible to fully separate adoption enablers from approval enablers.
Nevertheless, it is clear that awareness of PEVs, access to PEVs, and the intent to purchase a
PEV are associated with PEV adoption, and thus, enablers at every stage of the 4-A framework
can influence adoption. With that in mind, here we highlight the enablers that relate specifically
to PEV adoption after inclusion in the consideration set has been achieved. Keeping in mind that
purchase decisions can happen anytime and anywhere, especially as the new vehicle search
process becomes more and more fragmented, key enablers of adoption include financial and
nonfinancial purchase incentives; PEV experience, such as test drives; effective sales practices,
both in-person and online; high fuel prices and low electricity prices; and PEV vehicles with
attributes and features that satisfy the consumer criteria (e.g., Fujita et al. 2022; Hardman 2019;
Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty 2019; Narassimhan and Johnson 2018; Hardman and Tal
2016; Jenn, Springel, and Gopal 2018).
Findings suggest that incentives for PEV purchases have a generally positive effect on PEV
adoption (e.g., as reviewed in Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty 2019). Purchase
interventions may take on many forms, ranging from one-time financial incentives, such as tax
credits or rebates, to recurring daily use benefits, such as access to HOV lanes, reductions or
waiving of tolls, and specialized parking opportunities.59 These enabling effects, though notable,
are neither unequivocal nor uniform.
While generally regarded as enablers of acceptance, the design of a purchase incentive influences
its effect on adoption rates. For example, rebates and tax credits have been found to bring PEV
purchase costs more in line with consumer willingness to pay and the cost of comparable ICEVs.
However, when one-time financial incentives take effect after purchase, consumers temporarily
bear the full purchase price of the PEV, either in the form of a single payment or financed
monthly payments. Additionally, the process of obtaining rebates and tax credits can be opaque
or confusing. Furthermore, some PEV incentives may accrue to consumers already likely to
purchase PEVs without an intervention. 60 Thus, financial incentives at the time of purchase may
increase adoption rates while design elements simultaneously influence, and possibly diminish,
their enabling effect.
Regarding recurring incentives, Hardman et al. (2019) found a range of effectiveness across U.S.
studies. For example, Jenn et al. (2018) found that HOV lane access could increase PEV sales by
approximately 50% while Narassimhan & Johnson (2018) found no significant relationship
between HOV access and PEV sales. 61'62 In addition, though not always or explicitly a purchase
59 High occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes are generally reserved for vehicles with multiple occupants, but many states
offer HOV lane access for PEVs regardless of the number of vehicle occupants. Such incentives may be available
for all PEVs or for a set number of early adopters.
60 For example, PEV buyers have tended to have higher incomes. Some studies suggest that caps on vehicle price
and/or on buyer income can increase the likelihood that the recipient of a purchase incentive would not have
purchased a PEV otherwise, improving the equity of PEV incentives (Linn 2022).
61 Note that these studies each used state-level variables, covering similar time frames.
62 We locate this discussion here because PEV sales are an "adoption" metric, but we recognize that the mechanism
through which HOV lane access increases sales is likely via increased approval tied to this additional benefit of PEV
ownership and use.
48
-------
incentive, access to charging enables adoption. Jia and Chen (2021) found that availability of DC
fast charging stations in Virginia was positively associated with PEV adoption, particularly for
BEVs. Indeed, expanding charging networks and increasing charging access63 - achieved, for
example, through more public charging stations and ports, lower cost or free charging, and
subsidized home charger installations - are associated with higher PEV adoption rates and
greater effectiveness of tax incentives (e.g., Zou, Khaloei, and Mackenzie 2020; Zambrano-
Gutierrez et al. 2018; Neaimeh et al. 2017).
Experience with PEVs and EVSE also appear to enable PEV adoption, especially when it reveals
to the consumer attributes of PEVs that they want in their new vehicle. Experience includes
driving a PEV via test drives at dealerships and events as well as opportunities that emerge
through social networks or at the purchase location such as driving, riding in, or charging PEVs
and speaking with PEV owners. While experience is varied, we note that the majority of new
vehicle consumers rely on dealerships at some point in the purchase process, and very often are
at the dealership at the instance when the purchase decision occurs.64'65
From the PEV owner assessments conducted in Hardman et al. (2016), there is evidence that
experience driving a PEV can reveal potential positive aspects of performance and lifestyle fit. In
Hardman & Tal (2016), high-end BEV buyers note "high performance" and the vehicle being
"fun to drive" as reasons for adoption. Retroactively, consumer experience with PEVs informs
their intention to retain their vehicle and possibly purchase additional PEVs in the future, as well
as creating the basis from which they share their PEV ownership experiences to others. For
example, Meckler-Pacheco and Hardman (2022) found that recent PEV owners often share
information with potential adopters, with 90% of their sample of California PEV owners
reporting that they spoke to non-PEV owners about their vehicles. A similar percentage of
respondents also reported speaking to PEV owners before deciding to adopt a PEV.
Relatedly, experience with EVSE is a key factor influencing PEV ownership, which we
distinguish from initial adoption but nevertheless deem relevant. Hardman & Tal (2021) found
PEV discontinuance (i.e., choosing to replace a PEV with an ICEV) was related to dissatisfaction
with the convenience of charging, specifically not having level 2 charging at home. Higher rates
of level 2 home charging supported intended PEV continuance. Thus, it seems likely that PEV
retention is associated with the convenient and lower cost charging that level 2 home charging
provides and that association may logically extend to PEV adoption among prospective PEV
consumers.66
63 Access to fast charging, specifically, also increases PEV usage among PEV adopters (Neaimeh et al. 2017).
64 Consumer dealership visits assessed through author calculations using Strategic Vision's New Vehicle Experience
Survey data for calendar years 2014, 2015, and 2016.
65 Almost 30% of new car sales were completed online in 2020, though only 2% were online before the COVID
pandemic (Korn 2021). However, a portion of consumers who purchased online may have visited a dealership to
view or test drive a vehicle before completing a purchase online.
66 Hardman and Tal (2021) also found that those with fewer household vehicles were more likely to discontinue
PEV ownership. Hardman et al. (2016) found that high-end PEV buyers expressed greater satisfaction across many
aspects of their post-purchase experience and also expressed greater likelihood of PEV ownership continuance; of
note, satisfaction was found to be generally high for PEVs of all price points.
49
-------
6.4 Obstacles to Adoption
As with other stages of acceptance, obstacles to adoption are largely the logical inverse of
enablers. Throughout this report, we have taken care to characterize factors as enablers or
obstacles when they are generally presented as such in the scientific literature. While relevant to
the entire report, our attention to perspective is especially important here. Our review is bounded
by what researchers have studied, how they have chosen to present their findings, and where
their research lies within the structure of the 4-A framework. The consequence is that the
discussion that follows may appear to be unbalanced. Specifically, awareness, access, and
approval of PEVs are key enablers of adoption. Thus, their absence or insufficiency can be
critical obstacles to adoption. For example, limited advertising, charging deserts, confusing
eligibility requirements, no PEVs available for sale locally, high PEV purchase prices, etc. are all
associated with lower PEV adoption rates. However, those topics appear in Sections 3, 4, and 5,
not here. In addition, the experiences of some consumers at dealerships have received a lot of
attention without 1) separating the effects of awareness, access, and approval from the sales
experiences and 2) acknowledging the evolution from awareness through approval likely
underway among sales staff. Thus, in this section we proceed from acknowledging the
importance of awareness, access, and approval to adoption (above), we address the dealership
experience which has historically and primarily been presented in the literature as an obstacle,
and we note what is likely a significant degree of variability in obstacles faced by U.S.
consumers.
For many consumers, a dealership is the location where they first physically interact with PEVs.
Thus, dealerships play a key role in adoption; a positive experience can increase adoption, while
a negative or lackluster experience can hinder or stop the purchase process.67 While the effect of
dealership experience in PEV adoption has not been studied extensively, some research has
identified several issues at the point of sale that can be barriers to adoption(e.g., Lunetta and
Coplon-Newfield 2017; Le and Lindhardt 2019). First, salespeople may not be well-equipped
with accurate information about the technology, and so are unable to communicate PEV benefits
to consumers at the point of sale (e.g., Matthews et al. 2017; Le and Lindhardt 2019). This lack
of knowledge extends to familiarity with relevant tax credits, rebates, or other incentive
programs that could weight a consumer's decision in favor of a PEV. It has been noted that
dealership staff can undergo specialized training regarding ways to address consumer hesitancy
about purchasing PEVs (e.g., Carley, Siddiki, and Nicholson-Crotty 2019). Second, a "one size
fits all" marketing approach ignores the heterogeneity in consumer preferences, and may lead to
missed opportunities for adoption when the "full suite of consumer motivations and their
different combinations" are not considered (Axsen, Bailey, and Castro 2015). Third, Cahill et al.
(2014) noted that some dealers may be demotivated to sell PEVs if they are associated with
lower profit margins and lower revenue streams from less service and maintenance requirements
after the purchase. Fourth, as recently as 2019, it was found that a majority of dealerships across
the U.S. had no PEV models available for sale, though availability in ZEV-mandate states, and
California in particular, is substantially higher (Le and Lindhardt 2019). However, it is important
to note that recent expansion of PEV model offerings and signaling from manufacturers and
67 We note that while Tesla has not followed the traditional dealership model, other manufacturers, who have
represented approximately half of PEV sales in recent years, do sell PEVs through dealerships alongside ICEV
models (Alternative Fuels Data Center 2020).
50
-------
dealers suggest that practices may now be shifting in ways that would reduce this potential
obstacle (e.g., Stanton 2021; Lowell and Huntingtion 2019).
7. SYNTHESIS
The objective of this review is to provide insight into PEV acceptance and how acceptance may
be achieved. To that end, we define the 4-A framework for consumer acceptance, which consists
of 4 components - awareness, access, approval, and adoption - intentionally choosing lay terms
that speak to the state of mind of consumers and the conditions under which they progress
toward PEV adoption. In short, awareness is the knowledge of and the accuracy of knowledge of
PEVs. Access means that a suitable PEV is affordable, available, and convenientto purchase,
use, charge, and service. Approval occurs when PEVs are perceived, at minimum, as substitutes
for other vehicles. Adoption refers to the acquisition of a PEV via purchase or lease. Though not
all consumers proceed through these stages in this order, awareness of, access to, and approval of
PEVs are certainly preconditions for adoption, and in this order, reflect a reasonable progression
from one stage to the next.
We focus on consumers as they proceed through the stages of acceptance toward their first PEV
purchase, with particular emphasis on mainstream LDV consumers who comprise the majority of
prospective PEV buyers. From this perspective, consumers are the foremost stakeholders and
decision-makers. They are more than economic actors. Consumers' purchase decisions take
place in the contexts of complex social, economic, physical, and governmental systems.
Consumers influence and are influenced by the institutions, actors, and factors that comprise
those systems. As such, understanding consumer acceptance necessarily requires examination of
the dynamic contexts in which they acquire and assimilate information, examine their
circumstances, form opinions, and ultimately make decisions
With this consumer-centered structure in mind, we address the following questions according the
4-A framework:
• What is the current state of LD PEV acceptance in the United States among personal-use
consumers at each stage of acceptance?
• How do U.S. consumers move through the stages of PEV acceptance?
• What enables their progression at each stage of acceptance?
• What stands in their way at each stage of acceptance?
While PEV adoption can easily be measured via purchases, sales, and registrations, there are no
generally accepted metrics for awareness, access, and approval. In addition, empirical evidence
is frequently not directly observable. Given the variety of metrics, geographic diversity,
sampling techniques, and methods employed in the studies reviewed, quantitative estimates of
acceptance are neither absolute nor generalizable. Nevertheless, we note the amount of literature
relevant to a stage or topic, the consistency of that literature, and the degree to which the
literature conclusively supplies actionable recommendations for enabling PEV acceptance and
for future research. In the interest of scope and readability, we aim to provide a faithful, not
51
-------
exhaustive, summary and synthesis of the literature and conducted an external peer review to
ensure that objective was met, we engaged in a formal peer review.68.
Overall, we believe there is reason to anticipate continued growth in PEV acceptance. However,
current PEV adopters are currently concentrated in locations with pro-PEV policies and higher
numbers of charging stations. Importantly, the experiences of current PEV adopters and of
consumers in favorable locations do not fully reveal the mechanisms that will lead to large scale
PEV adoption or the interventions that facilitate adoption among majority consumers. Capturing
the mainstream comes down to the interactions of many decision-makers, in complex decision
contexts, that are at various stages of a process. The process, which we represent with the 4-A
framework, culminates in the first purchase of a PEV, potentially followed by future PEV
purchases. First purchase of a new PEV is the focus of this literature review.
In the preceding sections, we have reported on the available research pertaining to stages of PEV
acceptance for U.S. consumers, including the state of acceptance at each stage, enablers, and
obstacles. We summarize those findings in Figure 8. Importantly, our review does not track all of
the variability in the studies reviewed (e.g., methodology, data) in order to focus on the
motivating questions as stated, to manage scope, and to speak to a multi-sector, multi-
disciplinary, national audience. Additional information on cited studies is included in Appendix
A, to allow interested readers to easily identify methods, sample sizes, and other features of these
studies.
We now broadly address the state of the literature for PEV awareness, access, approval, and
adoption. We note whether the stage is well studied, if there is a consistency in the reported
findings, and whether research on the stage suggests a conclusive direction for interventions. We
then assess each stage of PEV acceptance, highlight key enablers and/or obstacles, and pose
questions and share general thoughts on future research. We close with general recommendations
based on the literature reviewed.
7.1 Synthesis of Awareness
We define awareness as knowing about and having a generally correct understanding of PEVs.
Overall, we found the literature on PEV awareness to be somewhat limited, largely consistent in
terms of findings, and broadly conclusive in terms of policy directions. Notably, much of the
work on PEV awareness comes out of a handful of research institutions. In addition, California is
substantially better studied than other U.S. geographic regions. Furthermore, rural regions are
particularly understudied for metrics of awareness, as awareness studies that do include multiple
states often focus on urban centers.
Awareness studies derive largely from surveys and interviews. Thus, measures of awareness
depend on what was asked (e.g., "have you heard of PEVs?"), the subset of the population that
research subjects represent (e.g., self-selected, randomly selected, California residents), the
timing of the study (e.g., year), and researchers' definitions of "awareness" or "knowledge" (e.g.,
affirms that they have seen a PEV, correctly names a PEV make and model). Studies also differ
in the amount of information provided to respondents along with survey or interview questions,
68The report can be found in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Science Inventory
(https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/'). Publication Number EPA-420-R-22-022.
52
-------
which may influence the responses received. As a result, we observe a wide range of measures of
awareness. The percent of U.S. vehicle consumers who are aware of PEVs ranges from roughly
the mid-teens to the low eighties. Generalized metrics of awareness (e.g., "have you heard of
PEVs?") are more thoroughly and consistently studied than metrics of specific knowledge of
PEVs (e.g., "how far do you think a BEV can travel on one charge?", can accurately name PEV
models). Generalized metrics are also associated with higher measures of awareness, whereas
low levels of awareness are associated with studies that require correct or specific knowledge of
PEVs. On balance - though without a systematic quantitative analysis of awareness results - we
believe the literature supports the general conclusion that more than half of U.S. vehicle
consumers know that PEVs exist and have some rudimentary understanding of how they work.
The fundamental obstacle to PEV awareness is exposure, which includes exposure to PEVs,
charging infrastructure, other EVSE, incentives, and benefits. Exposure occurs through a variety
of passive and active means, including advertising; education; vehicle search (i.e., part of the
vehicle purchase process); on-line information, calculators, and tools; daily activities; social
networks; and vehicle fleets (e.g., taxis, rental vehicles, car-sharing). Passive exposure via daily
activities and social networks, for example, are especially powerful in the sense that they not
only increase awareness but also normalize PEV technology. These effects are heightened in
areas where PEVs already exist in higher volumes.
As the PEV market transitions from innovators and early adopters to the early majority (i.e., first
wave of mainstream consumer), especially where PEV volumes are relatively low, the most
effective interventions will inform and engage; target diverse consumer groups; and originate
from numerous sources. First, the early majority is more diverse than current PEV adopters.
Thus, a variety of interventions will have to reflect the many different types of consumers who
are operating in very different contexts and at different stages of acceptance. For example, a
consumer in urban California may need better information on how incentives work, while a
consumer in a more rural area of the Midwest may benefit most from learning about the
attributes of PEVs currently available and the locations of local charging stations. Second,
different engagement strategies will also be needed for different consumer groups, whether the
consumer group is defined according to geographic, demographic, and psychographic categories
or by the so-called "problems" that bring consumers into the new vehicle market (e.g., vehicle
failure, vehicle damage, change in needs). Third, a suite of interventions, originating from
multiple sources is far more likely to promote awareness than any single intervention, type of
intervention, or source. Though not exclusively, manufacturers advertise to differentiate,
governments inform to educate, friends and relative tell stories, and personal vehicle owners
project images or ethos aided by vehicle badging and styling. No single entity or individual is a
trusted resource for everyone. No single message or method is universally engaging. While the
literature suggests this general guidance, the design and effectiveness of any specific awareness
intervention for any particular consumer group may well present a fruitful area of research.
Relatedly, any new information that consumers internalize becomes personal knowledge they
can retrieve during the early stages of the vehicle purchase process. However, "internal search"
remains one of the most elusive aspects of the consumer purchase process generally, and for
PEV purchases specifically. How do consumers obtain, access, update, and process internal
information about vehicles, vehicle technologies, and vehicle purchase? This question gains
additional salience in the context of the rapidly changing market for PEVs. While the market
may change to a suite of PEVs with attributes that better aligns with consumers' criteria, will
53
-------
consumers independently register these changes and incorporate them into their decision
making? How can consumers be supported in assimilating this onslaught of information? Any
new light shed on the ways in which consumers take in information and retrieve it during internal
search will necessarily help to illuminate PEV awareness and connections between awareness,
approval, and adoption.
7.2 Synthesis of Access
We define access in terms of physical proximity to PEVs and charging infrastructure; vehicle
affordability; and eligibility for and ease of obtaining incentives and benefits associated with
PEVs and PEV use. Overall, we found the literature on PEV access to be somewhat limited,
largely consistent in terms of findings, and somewhat inconclusive in terms of policy directions.
Unlike awareness, access is often directly observable. However, like awareness there is no single
metric, and none are clearly objective. "Affordability" and "ease" are sufficiently ambiguous to
support the claim on multiple, subjective measures of access. But even physical proximity is rife
with measurement challenges and subjective judgements. For example, a consumer's physical
access to PEVs can be measured by the number of PEVs or PEV models within a reasonable
radius of home or work, the availability of a suitable PEV within that radius, the distance to a
dealership, etc. Likewise, eligibility criteria can be difficult to decipher and as a result may differ
"on paper" and "in practice."
As we have defined it, access is arguably the most complex of the four stages of PEV
acceptance. Nevertheless, we can characterize access in the United States as low in general,
higher in favorable locations, and growing. Key obstacles to access are clearly apparent. Until
recently, few PEVs and few PEV models were available for sale, and PEVs were distributed
primarily to states with the highest demand (e.g., ZEV states). In addition, PEVs are currently
more expensive to purchase than internal combustion alternatives, and PEVs have not been
available in the economy/affordable segment (e.g., less than $20,000). Because affordability can
be defined in absolute or relative terms and in that sense overlaps with approval, we also note
that the purchase price of PEVs currently exceeds estimates of consumer willingness-to-pay for
PEVs. Similarly, the difference between the purchase price of PEVs and the purchase price of
ICEVs exceeds estimates of consumers' willingness-to-pay for PEV-associated benefits (e.g.,
reduced operating costs, free parking, HOV lane access) and exceeds the value of most subsidies.
Furthermore, in addition to sometimes (or often) complicated eligibility criteria, paperwork, and
delays that can inhibit access, PEV incentives and benefits (e.g., subsidies, free parking,
operating costs) vary by individual, locality, and state, making it difficult for consumers to fully
assess and access the benefits of PEVs. Lastly, charging infrastructure is sparse in many
locations. The merits of charging, and of home charging specifically, are not available to
everyone,69 and the challenge of charging at multi-unit housing has yet to be solved, though
there is some early work on charging for people in multifamily housing that could serve as a
foundation for more research in this area (e.g., Guerra and Daziano 2020)).
69 Lack of understanding of the merits of home charging relates to awareness challenges but is also an example of
how the status quo - fueling ICEVs away from home - can impede consumers' ability to envision themselves
charging at home, which is typically less expensive than charging or fueling away from home. This failure, so to
speak, to recognize the benefits of home charging is compounded the upfront expense associated with installation
that is often characterized as "expensive" and unfamiliarity with charging installation. Because consumers are
typically present biased, risk averse, and reference dependent, access to the benefits of home charging, even for
those for whom it is feasible faces behavioral, as well as logistical and financial, obstacles.
54
-------
In short, enablers of access are counterpoints to these obstacles. Namely, the production and
distribution of more PEVs and more PEV models increases access. PEVs available at a wider
diversity of price points, including lower price points, better satisfies the criteria of
heterogeneous consumers. Access also increases with the expansion of one-time and daily use
PEV benefits. Notably, as long as available PEVs have a price premium relative to ICEV
equivalents, clear, timely, and easy to obtain incentives and benefits can close that gap for
individuals who would not have purchased a PEV otherwise. 70
In addition to increasing PEV offerings and availability, expanding and improving charging
infrastructure is essential to access as well as being a critical enabler of awareness and approval.
Specifically, public charging that is visible, conveniently located, easy to use, and affordable
increases access while also increasing awareness (e.g., through exposure) and approval (e.g.,
through the salience of operating costs, alleviation of range anxiety, convenience of home
charging). This is especially true for individuals who cannot charge at home. For those who can
charge at home, home charging is clearly convenient, and access to level 2 home charging has
been shown to support re-purchase of PEVs among PEV owners (Hardman and Tal 2021).
Access to home charging can be improved if the process of electrical upgrades and charging
installation is normalized, transparent, fairly priced, and easy to obtain.71 Similarly, if
appropriately addressed, PEV charging in multifamily housing could become an enabler of
access for more consumers.
On a closely related topic, which we note overlaps with PEV awareness, it is not only the actual
attributes of charging infrastructure that matter to PEV access (e.g., location, level, reliability,
price). Consumer perceptions of charging matter as well. Even if sufficient chargers are
conveniently available at affordable prices the degree to which consumers perceive charger
access will shape their evaluation of PEV access overall, and thus their degree of PEV approval
and decisions to adopt or not. Whether at home or away from home, there are technological and
psycho-social puzzles to solve.
7.3 Synthesis of Approval
PEV approval begins with the assessment that PEVs are "as good as" ICEVs (e.g., viewed as a
substitute for conventional vehicles, included in the consideration set). Full PEV approval is
achieved with the intent to purchase. Depending on the consumer, intent is a rough equivalent for
adoption or far from it. Overall, we found the literature on PEV approval to be extensive. This is
perhaps the most thoroughly studied stage of PEV acceptance. Consistency of findings across
studies is strong when comparing across similar consumer groups or research participants, but
more variable if trying to summarize U.S. consumers as a whole. The literature does not fully
coalesce around conclusive policy directions to increase consumer approval of PEVs. This is
possibly due to an unspecified delineation of approval from awareness, access, and adoption as
70 Increasing the magnitude of financial incentives also increases access. However, large financial incentive become
very costly with high levels of PEV market penetration. Instead, adaptive financial incentives could respond to
market conditions, such as the decline in technology costs (e.g., battery costs) as well as the rise in PEV market
share.
71 This introduces at least two potential arguments. First, the capacity for some to charge at home could reduce
congestion at public chargers. Second, the ability for some to charge at home, when others cannot, introduces
significant differences in access and important equity considerations.
55
-------
we have done here. Instead, the literature tends to focus on specific topics (e.g., various
willingness-to-pay measures; intent to purchase; size, effect, or target population of incentives)
rather than the more comprehensive questions we ask here (See Sections 1.4 and above).
Although, monetary and nonmonetary metrics and measures of approval vary widely, altogether
the literature suggests that more than half of consumers believe PEVs are as good as ICEVs (e.g.,
Singer 2017). Importantly, this is a general assessment of vehicles and not necessarily an
assessment of, for example, the convenience of charging, availability of a suitable make and
model, personal assessment of affordability, evaluation of how a PEV fits one's lifestyle, or
intent to purchase. Regardless of metric, approval varies according to consumer characteristics
(e.g., demographics, psychographics), vehicle attributes (e.g., price, range, body style), and
contextual factors (e.g., social, economic, and governmental systems). As with awareness and
access, the literature shows that consumers in favorable locations (e.g., access to charging and
incentives), with favorable demographics (e.g., high income, highly educated, home owners), or
with favorable attitudes (e.g., technology forward, environmentally oriented) are more likely to
approve of PEVs and to approve more strongly.72 Among consumer characteristics that have
been thoroughly studied, we observed variability in findings for some characteristics and
consistency in others. For example, approval rates by age group have some variability across
studies, but pro-environmental sentiments were consistently found to be linked to PEV approval.
We also note higher approval among individuals with awareness of and access to PEVs, EVSE,
and incentives. In short, awareness and access enable approval. These and other enablers of
approval are rooted in the capacity of social, economic, and governmental systems to expand and
enhance conditions that favor PEV acceptance (e.g., diverse PEV offerings, more charging
infrastructure, more financial and non-financial incentives), increase the access to and salience of
PEV benefits for more demographic groups (e.g., more education, more PEV options at more
price points, greater appreciation of vehicle operating costs), and market the symbolic and
emotional appeal of PEVs to more life-style segments (e.g., more and better advertising,
firsthand experience).
Key obstacles to PEV approval relate to pragmatic concerns, such as vehicle price range, body
style diversity, and infrastructure sufficiency. Key obstacles to PEV approval also relate to
consumers' perspectives, perceptions, reference points, uncertainties, anxieties, and
imaginations, which are shaped by their decision-making contexts. Consumers need to be able to
envision their lives as PEV owners in a plausible, realistic context. The degree to which PEV
attributes and the decision-making context help consumers establish new reference points, reduce
uncertainty, quell anxiety, and stimulate imagination will determine the level and pace of PEV
approval.
With improvements in charging infrastructure, PEV range, PEV options, and PEV prices,
consumer belief in the competence and suitability of PEVs compared to ICEVs will likely
continue to evolve toward intent to purchase. Likewise, the willingness-to-pay for PEVs and
PEV prices will likely converge as more diverse PEV offerings and technological advancements
provide more utility to more consumer segments. We cannot conclude, however, that this
trajectory is set. There appears to be general consensus in the literature that consumer
72 Note that we use the word "favorable" to describe locations where PEV adoption, charging infrastructure, and
pro-PEV policies co-occur. We also use the word "favorable" to describe the demographic and psychographic
characteristics associated with current PEV adopters.
56
-------
heterogeneity is a key research area. As the PEV-adopting population shifts from the early
adopters into mass market adopters, there will necessarily be shifts in the predominant
characteristics of adopters and likely adopters. Nevertheless, we expect that further study of the
characteristics of consumers who do and do not approve of PEVs and the conditions under which
they do and do not approve will remain valuable in crafting policies and other interventions as
the PEV market changes in the coming years.
Key interventions for approval shape positive attitudes and the conditions under which new
vehicle consumers evaluate vehicle options. Interventions that directly target approval surmount
concerns (e.g., "where will I charge my vehicle?", "can I afford a PEV?"), build confidence (e.g.,
"will a PEV suit my lifestyle?"), normalize PEV ownership, convey PEV advantages (e.g., save
on operating costs, convenient home charging, driving performance, environmental
performance), and help consumers to internalize the benefits that PEVs provide. As a result, we
conclude that personal interactions and firsthand experience with PEVs are most effective in
shaping positive attitudes toward PEVs (e.g., achieved, for example, via social networks, ride-
and-drive events, dealerships). Indeed, the positive experiences of current PEV drivers can
positively influence potential adopters when opportunities to communicate occur. Current PEV
drivers state that it is common for them to communicate with potential adopters about their
vehicles. Thus, interventions that amplify those personal interactions and experiences increases
PEV approval. Furthermore, because awareness and access are enablers of approval,
interventions that support awareness and access also directly and indirectly enable approval (e.g.,
advertising, education, expanding charging infrastructure, financial incentives). These actions
create the social, financial, and physical conditions that make a PEV an easily viable vehicle
choice (e.g., "my friends and family admire my choice", "the purchase price and operating costs
fit my budget", "I can charge my vehicle with ease").
7.4 Synthesis of Adoption
PEV adoption is the acquisition of a PEV via purchase or lease. Metrics for adoption include
new vehicle sales, purchases, registrations, and production (i.e., as a proxy for sales) measured as
counts and percentages. In this review, we have focused on the process leading to first purchase
of PEVs, though clearly second and subsequent acquisition of PEVs will become increasingly
important. Studies of adoption benefit from adoption being directly observable. However, a
challenge for adoption studies is distinguishing factors that influence adoption separate from
approval, access, and awareness. Another challenge in assessing what tips the balance in favor of
a PEV adoption when available research subjects consist of very different subgroups, namely
current PEV adopters (i.e., innovators and early adopters) and non-adopters (i.e., mainstream,
mass market, majority consumers). With these challenges in mind, we characterize the literature
on PEV adoption to be somewhat limited, somewhat consistent in terms of findings, and
somewhat conclusive in terms of research and policy directions.
From the scientific literature and available data, we observe that PEV adoption is on the rise. In
2020, PEVs represented 2.2% of annual new vehicle sales in 2020, 4.62% in 2021, and 6.64% as
of May 2022. This is a notable increase in general but especially in light of the lower number of
new vehicle sales in 2020 that persisted in 2021. However, PEV adoption across the United
States is currently concentrated in locations such as the coasts, ZEV states, and urban areas. As
with awareness, access, and approval, locations with higher adoption rates appear to co-occur
with two other traits, the availability of state and local PEV incentives and public charging. We
57
-------
refer to these as "favorable locations" due to the co-occurrence of relatively high PEV adoption
rates, state and local incentives, and charging infrastructure. Just as certain areas of the country
show higher levels of PEV adoption, specific demographic groups also dominate. Compared to
light duty vehicle consumers, the PEV adopters are more likely to be male, have high incomes,
high levels of education, own their homes, and live in single family dwellings. Furthermore,
specific segments of the LDV market account for much of the PEV uptake thus far. Those
segments include individuals with a strong affinity for technology, the environment, or vehicle
operating costs. Locations, demographics, and attitudes that are currently associated with PEV
adoption are also associated with PEV acceptance more generally.
Among adoption enablers, we observe four clear enablers in addition to awareness, access, and
approval. Namely, firsthand experience with PEVs, financial and non-financial incentives, high
fuel prices and low electricity prices, and good sales practices. As with approval, advantageous
attributes of PEVs - such as driving performance, cost of ownership, and charging convenience -
motivate adoption. Thus, experience with PEVs via, for example, dealership test drives and
social networks not only gets PEVs into consumers' consideration sets but supports consumers in
making the leap from consideration to purchase. In addition, PEV buyers often retrospectively
identify incentives (e.g., subsidies, rebates, and tax credits) and use benefits (e.g., high
occupancy vehicle lane access in California) as key enablers in their purchase. Furthermore,
studies often find that high fuel prices, and to a lesser extent, low electricity prices are associated
with PEV adoption.73 Finally, there is a small but coherent body of literature demonstrating the
importance of sales practices at the time of purchase, particularly at dealerships where most sales
currently take place.
In contrast, PEV adoption can be curtailed by real or perceived disadvantages associated with
PEVs. These obstacles include purchase price, range and charging concerns, confidence in
PEV/battery technology, and general uncertainty. These obstacles most directly inhibit earlier
stages of acceptance but may manifest at the time of purchase as lingering doubt. Education,
advertising, social exposure, and firsthand experience could preempt that doubt, and appropriate
sales practices could overcome it. Here, we emphasize the pivotal nature of the purchase
experience. Yet the role of the vehicle purchase experience in the United States74 is
understudied.75 In the absence of that research, the quality of the PEV purchase experience and
its impact on PEV adoption will continue to largely be informed by a debate that has been
playing out in the popular media (e.g., press releases, online information, newsletters) and in
NGO reports (e.g., Le and Lindhardt 2019; Lunetta and Coplon-Newfield 2017). We also
emphasize the importance of financial incentives. While awareness of and access to financial
incentives supports PEV approval, the effort involved in obtaining the incentive, the timing of
receiving it, the amount of the incentive, and any uncertainty associated with the effort, timing,
73 It is not understood why this difference exists, though there are hypotheses. Firstly, electricity prices are generally
lower that fuel prices, electricity prices are possibly less salient to consumers, and loss aversion may be at work (i.e.,
increased fuel prices evoke losses which are have an outsized effect on consumers relative to gains associated lower
electricity).
74 A more substantial amount of research has been conducted outside of the U.S., such as dealerships in Canada and
Nordic countries (e.g., Zarazua De Rubens, Noel, and Sovacool 2018). U.S. decision-making would benefit from
additional U.S.-specific research, as it is uncertain to what extent the findings of such studies can be applied to U.S.
PEV adoption.
75 Cahill (2015) is likely the most comprehensive academic research on dealerships. Given the rapid changes in the
new vehicle market, this information may be outdated. More recent research is need.
58
-------
or amount of the incentive could thwart an intended PEV purchase. For example, contrast "cash-
on-the-hood" (i.e., a rebate received at the time of sale) with a tax credit that is tied to the nature
of the vehicle and an individual's tax liability. The former is low effort, immediate, and certain at
the time of purchase. The latter arguably is not. Efforts to better understand the impacts of
incentive amounts, timing, effort, and certainty and inform effective implementation of
incentives among diverse consumers is important research. Lastly, we emphasize other
monetizable incentives (e.g., free parking, toll road access, free charging) and non-monetary
incentives (e.g., HOV lane access, prime parking). Much of the existing research into these
incentives derives from urban locations and reflects urban conditions (e.g., long commutes,
scarce or expensive parking, congested roadways). As a result, those types of incentives have
been shown to be effective in urban environments, but their effectiveness in other contexts is not
clear. What types of non-monetary incentives could be effective elsewhere? How will they be
implemented? And by whom?
59
-------
Awareness Access Approval Adoption
DEFINITION: Consumer...
has generally correct PEV knowledge
has convenient access to PEV & EVSE
perceives PEV, minimally, as substitute
acquires (buy or lease) PEV
LU
u
2
<
1-
Q.
UJ
U
• Metrics
• Know about, name, recognize
vehicles and chargers; recognize
PEV&EVSE-relevant signs and
symbols; accurate knowledge
• Physical/geographic availability
vehicles, charging, and other EVSE (e.g.,
#, proximity, and density of vehicles,
vehicle models, body styles, charging
sites, charging ports); affordability,
purchase price, and ownership costs
• Stated preferences, such as: "consider
purchase", "at least as good as",
purchase intent; WTP > purchase price;
WTP >TOC; included in consideration
set or evoked set
• Sales, purchases, registrations, and
production (as a proxy}
U-
O
LU
<
• State of ...
• 50 - 80% Varies by metric.
Geographically & socio-
economically uneven.
¦ Geographically & socio-economically
uneven access to vehicles and EVSE
• >50% Varies by metric. Geographically
& socio-economically uneven
• ~4-5% of new vehicle sales in 2021
• Geographically & socio-economically
uneven
1/5
• Dynamics
• Stable/Stagnant
• More vehicle models, body style, and
geographic distribution expected
• More public EVSE expected
• Increasing/Growing
• Projections vary widely
UJ
<
LO
m
n
• Consumer
• Process
• Criteria
¦ Characteristics
• Segments
• Favorable location (i.e., access to
public charging, incentives or
benefits, & PEVs)
• Susceptible/Receptivity to
information
• Processing ability
• Favorable location
• High income
¦ Home charging capable
• Workplace charging
• Favorable location
• Favorable demographics, such as high
income, educated, homeowner, single
family home
• Favorable attitudes, image and identity
associations
• Charging convenience & concerns
• PEV experience
• Correct knowledge of PEVs & EVSE
• PEV & EVSE confidence
• Consumer Awareness
• Consumer Access
• Consumer Approval
• PEV experience
*/>
DC
LU
m
<
z
UJ
• Vehicle
• Features
• Attributes
• Availability
• High PEV numbers/percentages
* High PEV & EVSE visibility
¦ Purchase price, TCO
¦ Supply & distribution of vehicles &
models
• Price, TCO, range, body style, segment
• PEV driving performance
• Environmental Performance
• State of the art/Innovative
• Test drive
• System
¦ Market
• Social
• Physical
• Government
• Exposure to PEVs, infrastructure,
other EVSE, and incentives and
benefits
• Targeted & abundant advertising
• Targeted & abundant education
• Availability reliable, convenient, low-
cost charging
• Ease of obtaining incentives
• Eligibility for incentives
• Exposure to PEVs & EVSE
• Reliable, convenient, low-cost charging
• Financial/non-financial
incentives/benefits
• Financial/Non-financial
incentives/benefits
• Sales Practices
• High fuel prices
• Low electricity prices
Figure 8. Summary of state of acceptance and enablers (obstacles)
60
-------
7.5 Moving Forward
In general, but not always, policy recommendations from the scientific literature are not specific,
which is reflected in our synthesis above. Among those general policy recommendations is the
assertion that local level action will most effectively enable PEV acceptance and remove
obstacles, especially if interventions reflect the characteristics of the local population (e.g.,
density, socio-demographics, stage of acceptance) and the opportunities and challenges specific
to that population (e.g., multi-unit housing, low income, PEV density, climate, culture).
However, most local entities cannot develop, implement, evaluate, and fund PEV acceptance
programs independently. National, regional, and state level actions have a significant role to
play. Both local level action and the interplay of local, state, regional, and national level actions
were out of the scope of this literature review. Nevertheless, we emphasize that these are areas of
important research and action moving forward. We also highlight that we refer only to local
entities, not specifically local governments. There are a variety of actors with agency at the local
level, including utilities, municipalities, dealerships, and PEV enthusiasts. There are also a
variety of state, regional, national, and international actors with the capacity to influence local
level PEV programs, such as manufacturers, governments, researchers, and non-governmental
organizations.
To date, PEV adopters represent a relatively narrow band of consumer characteristics. For
example, current PEV adopters are more likely than the average new car buyer to have a high
income, have a high level of education, own their home, or live in detached homes. PEV
adopters have also been more likely than average new car buyers to be environmentally oriented,
technology forward, or cognizant of vehicle operating costs. In addition, the geographic
distribution of PEV adopters has been uneven and concentrated in coastal and urban areas. For
the diffusion of PEVs to proceed, PEV adopter characteristics must shift to better reflect
mainstream buyers. Given automakers' announcements of plans to significantly expand PEV
production, we expect many new PEVs to enter the new vehicle market in the near-future and
over the coming years. In response to the introduction of more diverse PEVs, the characteristics
of PEV adopters is also expected to evolve to more closely align with mainstream new vehicle
consumers.
Indeed, it seems quite possible that conditions for the next wave of potential PEV adopters (i.e.,
the first wave of mainstream buyers also known as the early majority) are already amenable to
PEV adoption (e.g., PEVs are affordable for this subset with or without incentives, public
charging is accessible, home or work charging is feasible). The "heavy lift" lies in increasing
awareness and approval, leveraging the advantages of PEVs to shift attitudes, and supporting an
easy transition away from fueling to charging and away from fueling at commercial sites to
charging at home and at work. Consumer demand will pull more support services like home
electrical upgrades, home charger installations, and charging station maintenance into the
market. However, the force and momentum of the transition to the early majority will rely on
other sources, such as manufacturers, dealers, governments, non-governmental organizations,
municipalities, utilities, and PEV enthusiasts.
61
-------
Before we conclude, the authors of this review offer our own suggestions based on the literature
regarding research and interventions. First, in the course of our review, we noted PEV policies
that are at odds with each other. For example, there are locations with both sizable purchase
incentives and sizable annual operation fees for PEVs (i.e., fees above and beyond those for
ICEVs). The first encourages PEV purchase, and the other may suppress it. In contrast, a suite of
PEV interventions that aligns with objectives and is directionally consistent will be more
effective. For example, PEV daily use benefits, convenient charging station location and density,
and reliable charging station maintenance all support PEV use and therefore PEV acceptance.
Second, there already are and likely will continue to be opportunities for synergies with other
policy realms. For example, synergies between solar, energy storage, and vehicle charging could
be codified. Building codes that inadvertently present barriers to electrical access in the places
where people regularly park could be revised. Identifying situations like these and responding
accordingly could create as yet unforeseen opportunities to support PEV acceptance.
Third, vehicle consumers are clearly making high stakes purchase decisions in complex social,
economic, physical, and governmental environments. Indeed, this is true of all the actors
considered here - whether institutions, households, or individuals. Research and experience tell
us that these decision makers are heterogeneous in ways that caution against generalizing from
one group to another or to all. Going forward, research and intervention will have to continue to
attend to consumer differences and their vastly different decision contexts. Fourth, researchers
and practitioners should work together; research can inform interventions, and interventions can
inform research.
Lastly, many enablers of PEV acceptance are specific to specific stages of acceptance, while
many others cross the boundary of PEV acceptance stages. In the first case, the objective,
measures, and metrics for research and interventions should be clearly defined and aligned with
the stage of interest. For example, an informational campaign intended to increase awareness of
incentives should reach prospective consumers early in the vehicle search process (i.e., before or
during problem recognition and search) and should measure knowledge of incentives (e.g., not
sales) before and after the intervention. In the second case, research and interventions can
leverage design elements tailored to each stage. For example, a new charging station installation
presents opportunities to address every stage of acceptance. Plans for new charging station
installation could include high visibility signage and location (i.e., exposure for building
awareness and perceived access), and/or a "grand opening" event that includes personal
instruction on charger use and costs (i.e., education that supports access, approval, and adoption).
The event and station signage could also include communication regarding charger reliability
statistics and/or maintenance plans (i.e., information that builds confidence and contributes to
approval and adoption). In summary, it would be important to align goals and actions, look for
synergies across policy realms, tailor efforts to the target population, work together, and design
and measure to reach intermediate and ultimate objectives.
62
-------
REFERENCES
ACEEE. 2021. "Electric Vehicles Top GreenerCars' 2021 Ratings as Automakers Push
Electrification." American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 2021.
https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2021/02/electric-vehicles-top-greenercars-2021-
ratings-automakers-push.
. 2022. "Plug-In and Gas Hybrids Top GreenerCars' 2022 Ratings as Automakers Shift to
Larger EVs." American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 2022.
https://www.aceee.org/press-release/2022/02/plug-and-gas-hybrids-top-greenercars-2022-
ratings-automakers-shift-larger-evs.
Adepetu, Adedamola, and Srinivasan Keshav. 2017. "The Relative Importance of Price and
Driving Range on Electric Vehicle Adoption: Los Angeles Case Study." Transportation 44
(2): 353-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11116-015-9641-Y/FIGURES/14.
Adepetu, Adedamola, Srinivasan Keshav, and Vijay Arya. 2016. "An Agent-Based Electric
Vehicle Ecosystem Model: San Francisco Case Study." Transport Policy 46: 109-22.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.ll.012.
AFDC. 2021a. "Electric Vehicle Registrations by State." Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S.
Department of Energy. 2021. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962.
. 2021b. "Light Duty AFV Registrations." Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S.
Department of Energy. 2021. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10861.
. 2022a. "All Laws and Incentives Sorted by Type." Alternative Fuels Data Center. 2022.
https://afdc. energy. gov/laws/matrix?sort_by=tech.
. 2022b. "Electric Vehicle Laws and Incentives by State." Alternative Fuels Data Center.
2022. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10373.
Ajzen, Icek. 1991. "The Theory of Planned Behavior." Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50 (2): 179-211.
Alliance for Automotive Innovation. 2022. "Electric Vehicle Sales Dashboard." 2022.
https://www.autosinnovate.org/resources/electric-vehicle-sales-dashboard.
Alternative Fuels Data Center, n.d. "Electric Vehicles." U.S. Department of Energy,
afdc. energy. gov/vehi cl e s/el ectri c. html.
. 2020. "U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicles Sales by Model." U.S. Department of Energy.
2020. https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10567.
Archsmith, James E., Erich Muehlegger, and David S. Rapson. 2021. "Future Paths of Electric
Vehicle Adoption in the United States: Predictable Determinants, Obstacles and
Opportunities." 28933. https://www.nber.org/papers/w28933.
Archsmith, James, Erich Muehlegger, and David S Rapson. 2021. "Future Paths of Electric
Vehicle Adoption in the United States : Predictable Determinants , Obstacles and
Opportunities," 1-42.
Axsen, Jonn, Joseph Bailey, and Marisol Andrea Castro. 2015. "Preference and Lifestyle
Heterogeneity among Potential Plug-in Electric Vehicle Buyers." Energy Economics 50:
190-201. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.eneco.2015.05.003.
Bellon, Tina, and Paul Lienert. 2021. "Factbox: Five Facts on the State of the U.S. Electric
Vehicle Charging Network." Reuters. 2021. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/five-facts-
state-us-electric-vehicle-charging-network-2021 -09-01/.
Bi, Youyi, Sixuan Li, David Wagner, and Tahira Reid. 2017. "The Impact of Vehicle Silhouettes
on Perceptions of Car Environmental Friendliness and Safety in 2009 and 2016: A
63
-------
Comparative Study." Design Science 3: 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.22.
Brown, Abby, Stephen Lommele, Alexis Schayowitz, and Emily Klotz. 2021. "Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth
Quarter 2020." Golden, CO. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/80120.pdf.
Briickmann, Gracia, Fabian Willibald, and Victor Blanco. 2021. "Battery Electric Vehicle
Adoption in Regions without Strong Policies." Transportation Research PartD: Transport
and Environment 90 (December 2020): 102615. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102615.
Bui, Anh, Peter Slowik, and Nic Lutsey. 2020. "Update on Electric Vehicle Adoption across
U.S. Cities." ICCT- International Council on Clean Transportation, no. August.
https://theicct.org/publication/update-on-electric-vehicle-adoption-across-u-s-cities/.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. "Hybrid-Electric, Plug-in Hybrid-Electric and Electric
Vehicle Sales." National Transportation Statistics. 2021.
https://www.bts.gov/content/gasoline-hybrid-and-electric-vehicle-sales.
Cahill, Eric. 2015. "Distribution Strategy and Retail Performance in the U.S. Market for Plug-in
Electric Vehicles: Implications for Product Innovation and Policy." University of California
Davis.
Cahill, Eric, Jamie Davies-Shawhyde, Thomas S Turrentine. 2014. "UC Davis Working Papers
Title New Car Dealers and Retail Innovation in California's Plug-In Electric Vehicle
Market Permalink Https://Escholarship.Org/Uc/Item/9x7255md Publication Date."
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9x7255md.
California Air Resources Board. 2022. "States That Have Adopted California's Vehicle
Standards under Section 177 of the Federal Clean Air Act." Advanced Clean Cars Program.
2022. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/states-have-adopted-californias-vehicle-
standards-under-section-177-federal.
Carley, Sanya, Saba Siddiki, and Sean Nicholson-Crotty. 2019. "Evolution of Plug-in Electric
Vehicle Demand: Assessing Consumer Perceptions and Intent to Purchase over Time."
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 70 (March): 94-111.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.002.
Chakraborty, Debapriya, Koral Buch, and Gil Tal. 2021. "Cost of Vehicle Ownership: Cost
Parity Between Plug-in Electric Vehicles and Conventional Vehicles Is at Least a Decade
Away," April. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2R20ZNX.
Chakraborty, Debapriya, David S. Bunch, David Brownstone, Bingzheng Xu, and Gil Tal. 2022.
"Plug-in Electric Vehicle Diffusion in California: Role of Exposure to New Technology at
Home and Work." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 156: 133-51.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.12.005.
Chakraborty, Debapriya, Gil Tal, and Koral Buch. 2022. "Total Cost of Ownership of Electric
Vehicles Adopters."
Cherchi, E. 2017. "A Stated Choice Experiment to Measure the Effect of Informational and
Normative Conformity in the Preference for Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice 100: 88-104.
Coffman, Makena, Paul Bernstein, and Sherilyn Wee. 2017. "Electric Vehicles Revisited: A
Review of Factors That Affect Adoption." Transport Reviews 37 (1): 79-93.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1217282.
Consumer Reports. 2020. "Consumer Report National EV Survey."
64
-------
Cox Automotive. 2021. "2021 Path to EV Adoption." https://www.coxautoinc.com/news/as-
more-americans-choose-evs-price-and-range-continue-to-hold-back-the-market-according-
to-new-cox-automotive-study/.
Darley, William K, Charles Blankson, and Denise J Luethge. 2010. "Toward an Integrated
Framework for Online Consumer Behavior and Decision Making Process: A Review."
Psychology & Marketing 21 (2): 94-116.
Davies, A. 2017. Consumer Products and Consumer Behavior. Consumer Perception of Product
Risks and Benefits, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50530-5_18.
Davis, Stacy C, and Robert G Boundy. 2021. "Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 39."
https://doi.org/10.2172/1767864.
Degirmenci, Kenan, and Michael H. Breitner. 2017. "Consumer Purchase Intentions for Electric
Vehicles: Is Green More Important than Price and Range?" Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment 51 (2017): 250-60.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.001.
Dehdashti, Yashar, Brian T. Ratchford, and Aidin Namin. 2018. "Who Searches Where? A New
Car Buyer Study." Journal of Marketing Analytics 6 (2): 44-52.
DeShazo, J. R., Tamara L. Sheldon, and Richard T. Carson. 2017. "Designing Policy Incentives
for Cleaner Technologies: Lessons from California's Plug-in Electric Vehicle Rebate
Program." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 84: 18-43.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.jeem.2017.01.002.
DeShazo, J.R. 2017. "Factors Affecting Plug-in Electric Vehicles Sales in California."
Dumortier, Jerome, Saba Siddiki, Sanya Carley, Joshua Cisney, Rachel M Krause, Bradley W
Lane, John A Rupp, John D Graham, and Chris Bachmann. 2015. "Effects of Providing
Total Cost of Ownership Information on Consumers' Intent to Purchase a Hybrid or Plug-in
Electric Vehicle." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 72 (2015): 71-86.
Egbue, Ona, Suzanna Long, and V.A. Samaranayake. 2017. "Mass Deployment of Sustainable
Transportation: Evaluationof Factors That Influence Electric Vehicle Adoption." Clean
Technologies and Environmental Policy 19(2017): 1927-39.
https://link.springer.eom/article/10.1007/sl0098-017-1375-4.
Engel, James F, David T Kollat, and Roger D Blackwell. 1968. Consumer Behavior. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
evadoption. 2019. "EV Market Share by State." 2019. https://evadoption.com/ev-market-
share/ev-market-share-state/.
EVgo Fast Charging. 2022. "Nissan Energy Perks by EVgo." 2022.
https://www.evgo.com/nissan-energy-perks/.
Fishbein, Martin, and leek Ajzen. 2009. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned
Action Approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Forbes. 2021. "Are Battery Cost Improvements Still A Big Driver Of Tesla's Margins?" 2021.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2021/12/01/are-battery-cost-improvements-
still-a-big-driver-of-teslas-margins/? sh=41 ac 1 ec74ae7.
Fujita, K. Sydny, Hung-Chia Yang, Margaret Taylor, and Dana Jackman. 2022. "The Green
Light on Buying a Car: How Consumer Decision-Making Interacts with Environmental
Attributes in the New Vehicle Purchase Process." Transportation Research Record March.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981221082566.
65
-------
Ge, Yanbo, Christina Simeone, Andrew Duvall, and Eric Wood. 2021. "There's No Place Like
Home: Residential Parking, Electrical Access, and Implications for the Future of Electric
Vehicle Charging Infrastructure." https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/81065.pdf.
Graham, J.D. 2021a. "Consumer Perspectives." In The Global Rise of the Modern Plug-In
Electric Vehicle: Public Policy, Innovation and Strategy. Northhampton, MA: Edward
Elgar Publishing, Inc.
. 2021b. "Persuading Consumers." In The Global Rise of the Modern Plug-In Electric
Vehicle: Public Policy, Innovation and Strategy. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar
Publishing, Inc.
Greene, David L., Matteo Muratori, Eleftheria Kontou, Brennan Borlaug, Marc Melaina, and
Aaron Brooker. 2020. "Quantifying the Tangible Value of Public Electric Vehicle Charging
Infrastructure." www.nrel.gov.
Greschak, T., M. Kreider, and N. Legault. 2022. "Consumer Adoption of Electric Vehicles: An
Examination of Local Electric Vehicle Adoption Actions in the United States." Ann Arbor,
MI.
Guerra, Erick, and Ricardo A. Daziano. 2020. "Electric Vehicles and Residential Parking in an
Urban Environment: Results from a Stated Preference Experiment." Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 79 (January): 102222.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102222.
Hardman, S., and G. Tal. 2016. Exploring the Decision to Adopt a High-End Battery Electric
Vehicle: Role of Financial and Nonfinancial Motivations. Transportation Research Record.
Vol. 2572. https://doi.org/10.3141/2572-03.
Hardman, Scott. 2019. "Understanding the Impact of Reoccurring and Non-Financial Incentives
on Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption - A Review." Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 119: 1-14. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.ll.002.
Hardman, Scott, Eric Shiu, and Robert Steinberger-Wilckens. 2016. "Comparing High-End and
Low-End Early Adopters of Battery Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice 88: 40-57. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.03.010.
Hardman, Scott, and Gil Tal. 2016. "Exploring the Decision to Adopt a High-End Battery
Electric Vehicle: Role of Financial and Nonfinancial Motivations." Transportation
Research Record2572: 20-27. https://doi.org/10.3141/2572-03.
. 2021. "Understanding Discontinuance among California's Electric Vehicle Owners."
Nature Energy 6 (5): 538-45. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00814-9.
Hartman, Kristy, and Laura Shields. 2021. "State Policies Promoting Hybrid and Electric
Vehicles." National Conference of State Legislatures. 2021.
https://www.ncsl.org/research/energy/state-electric-vehicle-incentives-state-chart.aspx.
Harto, Chris, and Shannon Baker-Branstetter. 2019. "Rising Trend of Punitive Fees on Electric
Vehicles Won ' t Dent State Highway Funding Shortfalls but Will Hurt Consumers."
Hidrue, Michael K., George R. Parsons, Willett Kempton, and Meryl P. Gardner. 2011.
"Willingness to Pay for Electric Vehicles and Their Attributes." Resource and Energy
Economics 33 (3): 686-705. https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.RESENEECO.2011.02.002.
Higgins, Christopher D., Moataz Mohamed, and Mark R. Ferguson. 2017. "Size Matters: How
Vehicle Body Type Affects Consumer Preferences for Electric Vehicles." Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 100:182-201.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.04.014.
66
-------
Internal Revenue Service. 2022. "IRC 30D New Qualified Plug-In Electric Drive Motor Vehicle
Credit." 2022. https://www.irs.gov/businesses/irc-30d-new-qualified-plug-in-electric-drive-
motor-vehicle-credit.
Jenn, Alan, Katalin Springel, and Anand R. Gopal. 2018a. "Effectiveness of Electric Vehicle
Incentives in the United States." Energy Policy 119 (July 2017): 349-56.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.04.065.
Jia, Wenjian, and T. Donna Chen. 2021. "Are Individuals' Stated Preferences for Electric
Vehicles (EVs) Consistent with Real-World EV Ownership Patterns?" Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 93 (February): 102728.
https ://doi. org/10.1016/j .trd.2021.102728.
Jiang, P., and B. Rosenbloom. 2013. "Consumer Knowledge and External Pre-Purchase
Information Search: A Meta-Analysis of the Evidence." Research in Consumer Behavior
15:355-91.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under
Risk." Econometrica 47 (2): 263-92.
http://www.jstor.Org/stable/1914185%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/%5Cnhttp://www.jstor.org/a
ction/showPublisher?publisherCode=econosoc.%5Cnhttp://www .jstor.org.
Kane, Mark. 2021. "California: Plug-Ins Capture Over 8% Of The Market In 2020." InsideEVs.
2021. https://insideevs.com/news/486199/california-plugin-electric-car-sales-q4-2020/.
Karlsson, Sten. 2017. "What Are the Value and Implications of Two-Car Households for the
Electric Car?" Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 81: 1-17.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trc.2017.05.001.
Korn, Morgan. 2021. "More Consumers Are Shopping Online for Cars. Can Dealerships Keep
Up?" ABC News. 2021. https://abcnews.go.com/Business/consumers-shopping-online-cars-
dealerships/story?id=76650042#:~:text=Nearly 30%25 of U.S. new,%2C%22 Haig told
ABC News.
Kurani, Kenneth S. 2018. "State of the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Market."
Kurani, Kenneth S., Nicolette Caperello, and Jennifer TyreeHageman. 2016. "New Car Buyers'
Valuation of Zero-Emission Vehicles : California."
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/28v320rq.
Kurani, Kenneth S., Nicolette Caperello, Jennifer TyreeHageman, and Jamie Davies. 2018.
"Symbolism, Signs, and Accounts of Electric Vehicles in California." Energy Research and
Social Science 46 (January): 345-55. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.009.
Kurani, Kenneth S., Thomas S. Turrentine, and Daniel Sperling. 1996. "Testing Electric Vehicle
Demand in 'Hybrid Households' Using a Reflexive Survey." Transportation Research Part
D: Transport and Environment 1 (2): 131-50.
Kurani, Kenneth S. 2019. The State of Electric Vehicle Markets, 2017: Growth Faces an
Attention Gap. https://doi.org/10.7922/G2D50K51.
Kurani, Kenneth S, and Koral Buch. 2021. "Across Early Policy and Market Contexts Women
and Men Show Similar Interest in Electric Vehicles." https://doi.org/10.7922/G2Q52MWD.
Langbroek, Joram H.M., Joel P. Franklin, and Yusak O. Susilo. 2016. "The Effect of Policy
Incentives on Electric Vehicle Adoption." Energy Policy 94 (July): 94-103.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2016.03.050.
67
-------
Le, Hieu, and A Lindhardt. 2019. "Rev Up Electric Vehicles: A Nationwide Study of the Electric
Vehicle Shopping Experience." Sierra Club.
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/press-room/2153 Rev Up Report
2019_3_web.pdf.
Lee, Jae Hyun, Scott J. Hardman, and Gil Tal. 2019. "Who Is Buying Electric Vehicles in
California? Characterising Early Adopter Heterogeneity and Forecasting Market Diffusion."
Energy Research and Social Science 55 (November 2018): 218-26.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.05.011.
Li, Wenbo, Ruyin Long, Hong Chen, and Jichao Geng. 2017. "A Review of Factors Influencing
Consumer Intentions to Adopt Battery Electric Vehicles." Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 78 (May 2016): 318-28. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.076.
Liao, Fanchao, Eric Molin, and Bert van Wee. 2017. "Consumer Preferences for Electric
Vehicles: A Literature Review." Transport Reviews 37 (3): 252-75.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2016.1230794.
Linn, Joshua. 2022. "Is There a Trade-Off Between Equity and Effectiveness for Electric Vehicle
Subsidies?" RFF Working Paper, no. January: 1-51.
Liu, Yan, and Cinzia Cirillo. 2017. "A Generalized Dynamic Discrete Choice Model for Green
Vehicle Adoption." Transportation Research Procedia 23 (January): 868-86.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.TRPRO.2017.05.048.
Lowell, D., and A. Huntingtion. 2019. "Electric Vehicle Market Status." M.J. Bradley &
Associates, no. April, https://www.mjbradley.com/reports/electric-vehicle-market-status.
Lunetta, M., and G. Coplon-Newfield. 2017. "Rev Up Electric Vehicles: Multi-State Study of the
Electric Vehicle Shopping Experience." Sierra Club.
Maness, M., and Z. Lin. 2019. "Free Charging: Exploratory Study of Its Impact on Electric
Vehicle Sales and Energy." Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board2673 (9): 590-601.
Matthews, Lindsay, Jennifer Lynes, Manuel Riemer, Tania Del Matto, and Nicholas Cloet. 2017.
"Do We Have a Car for You? Encouraging the Uptake of Electric Vehicles at Point of
Sale." Energy Policy 100 (October 2016): 79-88.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.10.001.
Meckler-Pacheco, Alma, and Scott Hardman. 2022. "Understanding Engagement among
California Electric Vehicle Buyers." Davis, CA.
Moon, Sun Jung. 2019a. "Beliefs, Attitudes and Intention in Adopting Electric Vehicle." Journal
of Marketing Management Research 24 (3 ): 1-18.
. 2019b. "Effects of Early Adopter Tendency on the Intention to Adopt Electric Vehicles:
Application of the Extended Theory of Planned Behavior." Journal of Business Research 34
(4): 194-224.
. 2019c. "Effects of Psychological Environment Factors on Electric Vehicle Adoption:
Application of Expanded Theory of Planned Behavior." Journal of Consumer Studies 30
(6): 51-73.
Morton, Craig, Jillian Anable, and John D. Nelson. 2016. "Assessing the Importance of Car
Meanings and Attitudes in Consumer Evaluations of Electric Vehicles." Energy Efficiency 9
(2): 495-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl2053-015-9376-9.
68
-------
Muratori, Matteo, Paige Jadun, Brian Bush, David Bielen, Laura Vimmerstedt, Jeff Gonder,
Chris Gearhart, and Doug Arent. 2020. "Future Integrated Mobility-Energy Systems: A
Modeling Perspective." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 119 (October 2019):
109541. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109541.
Narassimhan, Easwaran, and Caley Johnson. 2018. "The Role of Demand-Side Incentives and
Charging Infrastructure on Plug-in Electric Vehicle Adoption: Analysis of US States."
Environmental Research Letters 13 (7). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aad0f8.
Nazari, Fatemeh, Abolfazl (Kouros) Mohammadian, and Thomas Stephens. 2019. "Modeling
Electric Vehicle Adoption Considering a Latent Travel Pattern Construct and Charging
Infrastructure." Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12 (April):
65-82. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.04.010.
Neaimeh, Myriam, Shawn D. Salisbury, Graeme A. Hill, Philip T. Blythe, Don R. Scoffield, and
James E. Francfort. 2017. "Analysing the Usage and Evidencing the Importance of Fast
Chargers for the Adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles." Energy Policy 108 (April): 474-
86. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.06.033.
Nishimoto, Alex. 2019. "Sticker Shock: The $35,000 Tesla Model 3 Is Finally Available to
Order." MotorTrend. 2019. https://www.motortrend.com/news/35000-tesla-model-3-finally-
available-price-specs-range/#:~:text=Way back in 2016 when,estimated range of 220 miles.
Nissan Motor Corporation. 2015. "Nissan Announces U.S. Pricing for 2016 LEAF." Nissan
Official U.S. Newsroom. 2015. https://usa.nissannews.com/en-US/releases/release-
9c04406501 da47ec83c0c313 8bf6a5f5-nissan-announces-u-s-pricing-for-2016-leaf.
Porter, Michael E. 1979. "How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy." Harvard Business Review
57 (2): 137-45.
Preston, Ben, and Jeff S. Bartlett. 2021. "Automakers Are Adding Electric Vehicles to Their
Lineups. Here's What's Coming." Consumer Reports. 2021.
https://www.consumerreports.org/hybrids-evs/why-electric-cars-may-soon-flood-the-us-
market-a9006292675/.
Punj, G., and R. Staelin. 1983. "A Model of Consumer Information Search for New
Automobiles." Journal of Consumer Research 9 (4): 366-80.
Raut, R.D., H.V. Bhasin, and S.S. Kamble. 2011. "Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for
Automobile Purchase Using an Integrated Analytical Quality Fuzzy (AQF) Technique."
International Journal of Services and Operations Management 10 (2): 136-67.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2011.042515.
Rogers, Everett M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. Edited by Free Press. 5th Editio.
Rosenholtz, Jared. 2016. "The Average Car Price In 2016 Is Higher Than It Has Ever Been."
Carbuzz. 2016. https://carbuzz.com/news/the-average-car-price-in-2016-is-higher-than-it-
has-ever-been.
Sanguinetti, Angela, Eli Alston-Stepnitz, and Angelika Cimene. 2020. "Facilitating Electric
Vehicle Adoption with Vehicle Cost Calculators." https://doi.org/10.7922/G2NS0S5W.
Sheldon, Tamara L., J. R. DeShazo, and Richard T. Carson. 2017. "Electric and Plug-in Hybrid
Vehicle Demand: Lessons for an Emerging Market." Economic Inquiry 55 (2): 695-713.
https://doi.org/10. Ill 1/ecin. 12416.
Sheldon, Tamara L., and Rubal Dua. 2019. "Measuring the Cost-Effectiveness of Electric
Vehicle Subsidies." Energy Economics 84 (October): 104545.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2019.104545.
69
-------
Shewmake, Sharon, and Lovell Jarvis. 2014. "Hybrid Cars and HOV Lanes." Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 67: 304-19. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.07.004.
Shin, Hyeon-Shic, Z Andrew Farkas, and Amirreza Nickkar. 2019. "An Analysis of Attributes of
Electric Vehicle Owners' Travel and Purchasing Behavior: The Case of Maryland." In
International Conference on Transportation and Development 2019. Alexandria, VA.
https://trid.trb.org/view/1647974.
Singer, Mark. 2016. "Consumer Views on Plug-in Electric Vehicles - National Benchmark
Report." Vol. NREL/TP-54. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fyl6osti/65279.pdf.
. 2017. "The Barriers to Acceptance of Plug-in Electric Vehicles: 2017 Update,"
November, https://doi.org/10.2172/1408997.
. 2020. "Plug-In Electric Vehicle Showcases: Consumer Experience and Acceptance."
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy20osti/75707.pdf.
Smart, John Galloway, and Shawn Douglas Salisbury. 2015. "Plugged In: How Americans
Charge Their Electric Vehicles." https://doi.org/10.2172/1369632.
Soltani-Sobh, Ali, Kevin Heaslip, Aleksandar Stevanovic, Ryan Bosworth, and Danilo
Radivojevic. 2017. "Analysis of the Electric Vehicles Adoption over the United States."
Transportation Research Procedia 22 (2016): 203-12.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.03.027.
Spurlock, C. Anna, James Sears, Gabrielle Wong-Parodi, Victor Walker, Ling Jin, Margaret
Taylor, Andrew Duvall, Anand Gopal, and Annika Todd. 2019. "Describing the Users:
Understanding Adoption of and Interest in Shared, Electrified, and Automated
Transportation in the San Francisco Bay Area." Transportation Research Part D: Transport
and Environment 71 (January): 283-301. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.014.
Stanton, Mike. 2021. "The Big Lie About EV Sales." National Automobile Dealers Association.
2021. https://blog.nada.org/2021/03/15/the-big-lie-about-ev-sales/.
Tal, Gil, S Raghavan, V Karanam, M Favetti, K Sutton, J H Lee, Christopher Nitta, Debapriya
Chakraborty, Michael Nicholas, and Tom Turrentine. 2020. "Advanced Plug-in Electric
Vehicle Travel and Charging Behavior Final Report (CARB Contract 12-319-Funding from
CARB and CEC)." California Air Resources Board.
Tanaka, Makoto, Takanori Ida, Kayo Murakami, and Lee Friedman. 2014. "Consumers'
Willingness to Pay for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Comparative Discrete Choice Analysis
between the US and Japan." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 70
(December): 194-209. https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.TRA.2014.10.019.
Taylor, Margaret, and K. Sydny Fujita. 2018. "Consumer Behavior and the Plug-In Electric
Vehicle Purchase Decision Process: A Research Synthesis."
https://eta.lbl.gov/publications/consumer-behavior-plug-electric.
Taylor, Margaret R. 2022. "Modeling the Future of Electric Vehicles to Support U.S. Public
Policy: A Comparison of Leading Approaches." Berkeley, CA.
Tucker, Sean. 2021. "EV Sales Growing, but Price, Range Hold Some Shoppers Back." Kelley
Blue Book. 2021. https://www.kbb.com/car-news/ev-sales-growing-but-price-range-hold-
some-shoppers-back/#:~:text=In October%2C when average transaction,premium of more
than 20%25.
. 2022. "Average New Car Price Tops $47,000." Kelley Blue Book. 2022.
https://www.kbb .com/car-news/average-new-car-price-tops-47000/.
70
-------
Turrentine, Thomas S., Scott Hardman, and Dahlia Garas. 2018. "Steering the Electric Vehicle
Transition to Sustainability."
U.C. Davis, n.d. "PHEV FAQ." Plug-In Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center,
http s ://phev. ucdavi s. edu/ab out/faq-phev/.
U.S. Department of Energy. 2022. "Electrifying Transportation to Benefit Every American."
Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/electrifying-transportation-benefit-every-american.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2021a. "The 2020 EPA Automotive Trends Report:
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology Since 1975."
. 2021b. "The 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel
Economy, and Technology Since 1975."
Vehicle Technologies Office. 2016. "Fact #939: August 22, 2016 All-Electric Vehicle Ranges
Can Exceed Those of Some Gasoline Vehicles." U.S. Department of Energy. 2016.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-939-august-22-2016-all-electric-vehicle-ranges-
can-exceed-those-some-gasoline.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Fred D. Davis. 2000. "A Theoretical Extension of the Technology
Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies " Management Science 46 (2): 186—
204. https://pubsonline.informs.Org/doi/abs/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.l 1926.
Wang, Ning, Linhao Tang, and Huizhong Pan. 2019. "A Global Comparison and Assessment of
Incentive Policy on Electric Vehicle Promotion." Sustainable Cities and Society 44 (May
2017): 597-603. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.024.
Wang, Xinyi, F. Atiyya Shaw, and Patricia L. Mokhtarian. 2022. "Latent Vehicle Type
Propensity Segments: Considering the Influence of Household Vehicle Fleet Structure."
Travel Behaviour and Society 26 (August 2021): 41-56.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tbs.2021.08.002.
White House Briefing. 2021. "FACT SHEET: The Biden-Harris Electric Vehicle Charging
Action Plan." Statements and Releases. 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-
room/statements-releases/2021/12/13/fact-sheet-the-biden-harris-electric-vehicle-charging-
action-plan/.
White, Lee V., and Nicole D. Sintov. 2017. "You Are What You Drive: Environmentalist and
Social Innovator Symbolism Drives Electric Vehicle Adoption Intentions." Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 99: 94-113. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.tra.2017.03.008.
Xu, Guowei, Shanyong Wang, Jun Li, and Dingtao Zhao. 2020. "Moving towards Sustainable
Purchase Behavior: Examining the Determinants of Consumers' Intentions to Adopt
Electric Vehicles." Environmental Science and Pollution Research 27 (18): 22535-46.
Yavorsky, Dan, Elisabeth Honka, and Keith Chen. 2020. "Consumer Search in the U.S. Auto
Industry: The Role of Dealership Visits." Quantitative Marketing and Economics.
https ://doi. org/10.1007/s 11129-020-09229-4.
Yip, Arthur H.C., Jeremy J. Michalek, and Kate S. Whitefoot. 2018. "On the Implications of
Using Composite Vehicles in Choice Model Prediction." Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological 116: 163-88. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j.trb.2018.07.011.
Zambrano-Gutierrez, Julio C., Sean Nicholson-Crotty, Sanya Carley, and Saba Siddiki. 2018.
"The Role of Public Policy in Technology Diffusion: The Case of Plug-in Electric
Vehicles." Environmental Science and Technology 52 (19): 10914-22.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b01149.
71
-------
Zarazua de Rubens, G., L. Noel, and B.K. Sovacool. 2018. "Dismissive and Deceptive Car
Dealerships Create Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption at the Point of Sale." Nature
Energy 3 (6): 501-7. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-018-0152-x.
Zhang, Qi, Hailong Li, Lijing Zhu, Pietro Elia Campana, Huihui Lu, Fredrik Wallin, and Qie
Sun. 2018. "Factors Influencing the Economics of Public Charging Infrastructures for EV -
A Review." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (October): 500-509.
https://doi.Org/10.1016/J.RSER.2018.06.022.
Zou, Tianqi, Moein Khaloei, and Don Mackenzie. 2020. "Effects of Charging Infrastructure
Characteristics on Electric Vehicle Preferences of New and Used Car Buyers in the United
States." Transportation Research Record 2674 (12): 165-75.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120952792.
72
-------
APPENDIX A. DATA AND METHOD DESCRIPTIONS FOR CITED LITERATURE
In this appendix, we provide additional information about the studies cited in this report. We include the methods, as self-described
within each paper, data type (e.g., sales data, survey - stated preference), sample frame (i.e., the particular population to which the
study relates), sample size, data vintage, and dynamic elements. We note that this table includes fewer entries than our full list of
references; we here include only studies with attributes that fit the table format, and exclude, e.g., websites, news reports, and papers
predominately about theories.
Citation
Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame Sample size/ Data vintage Dynamic elements (Panel/Cross-
description sectional/Projection)
survey - stated vehicle and
travel requirements
survey - revealed purchase,
stated preferences for
attributes
Adepetu & agent-based model
Keshav (2017)
Archsmith et al. probit model,
(2021) forecasting EV
demand
Axsen et al. latent-class analysis survey - stated choice
(2015) of discrete choice experiment
experiment data
Bi et al. (2017) correlation; ANOVA survey - stated preferences,
perceptions
Brown et al. descriptive statistics automated collection from
(2021) APIs, news releases
Bruckmann et generalized linear survey - revealed purchase,
al. (2021) mixed-effects logit stated preferences
choice model
Bui et al. descriptive statistics sales data
(2020)
Cahill et al. descriptive statistics survey - purchase experience
(2014) satisfaction; survey - PEV
purchase experience;
interviews - car dealers and
OEMs
Carlev et al. descriptive statistics; survey - stated preferences,
(2019) R-squared perceptions
decomposition
Los Angeles, California n=42,500
U.S. (nationally
representative)
Canada (new vehicle
buyers)
U.S. (online survey -
representativeness
uncertain)
U.S. & Canada
Switzerland
U.S.
California
U.S. (large cities)
n=474,274
n= 1,754
n=204
n = 127,000
[EVSE]
n = 5,325
2010-2012
2017-2018
2013
cross-section, used for
proj ection/ simulation
cross-section
cross-section
2009, 2016 cross-section, time series
2020
2018
cross-section, time series
cross-section
2019,2010-2019 time series
n = 29,040; n=
7,000; n = 43
n = 4,421
2013
2011; 2017
cross-section
longitudinal
73
-------
Citation
Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame Sample size/ Data vintage Dynamic elements
description
Chakrabortv et
al. (2021) '
Chakrabortv et
al. (2022) '
Chakraborty et
al. (2022)
Cherchi (2017)
Degirmenchi &
Breitner (2017)
Dehdashti et al.
(2018)
DeShazo et al.
(2017)
DeShazo
(2017)
Dumortier et al.
(2015)
Egbue et al.
(2017
Fuiita et al.
(2022)
Ge et al. (2021)
net present value
spatial analysis;
Poisson count
models
net present value
hybrid choice logit
model
structural equation
modeling (SEM)
latent class model
total cost of ownership
estimate
registration data by census
block group
survey - costs, infrastructure
availability
survey - stated choice
experiment
interview - stated
preferences, purchase
intentions; survey = stated
preferences, purchase
intentions
survey - vehicle purchase
process
logit choice model survey - stated preferences
varied (regression,
descriptive statistics,
etc.)
rank-ordered logit
model
loaistic rearession
factor analysis,
analytical hierarchy
process
descriptive statistics,
binomial loait
various: registrations,
Census, geospatial, etc.
survey - stated preferences
survey - stated preference
survey - stated preferences,
revealed purchase
survey - household parking
availability & electrical
California
California
California
Denmark
Germany
Northeast U.S.
California
California
n = 20,560
n = 13,549
n = 2,656
2020-2045
2014-2016
2015-2018
2014-2015
n = 40; n = 167 2015
projection
longitudinal
time series
cross-section
cross-section
n = 3473
n = 1,261
U.S. metropolitan areas n = 3,199
U.S. (focus on n = 122
engineering/technical
background)
U.S.
U.S.
n = 750.000
n = 3,772
1990, 2000, 2002, time series
2004, 2006,2010,
2012
2013
2013
2017
2014-2016
2020
cross-section
various
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
Greschak et al.
(2022)
descriptive statistics,
correlation
various: municipality
policies, utility programs
U.S.
n = 2000 2021
municipalities; n
= 50 utilities
cross-section
74
-------
Citation
Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame Sample size/ Data vintage Dynamic elements
description
Guerra & mixed logit; discrete survey: stated preference,
Daziano (2020) choice; latent class willingness to pay
analysis
Hardman & Tal
(2016)
Hardman et al.
(2016)
descriptive statistics,
qualitative analysis
means comparison,
regression analysis
survey, interviews: revealed
purchase, stated preference
(incentives)
survey: stated preference,
attributes of purchase
Philadelphia, PA
California
n = 1,545
2018
n= 539 (survey), 2015
Hardman & Tal descriptive statistics, 5 surveys: demographics,
(2021) X2 test results, logit behavior, PEV retention
regression decisions
n= 33
(interviews)
Worldwide, mostly U.S. n = 340
responses; BEV owners
California BEV & n= 1,842
PHEV owners
Hidrue et al.
(2011)
laten class random
utility model
survey: car ownership,
driving habits, choice
experiment, attitudinal and
demographic questions
U.S. (potential car
buyers)
Higgins et al. Multivariate analysis Survey: household vehicle Canada
n= 3,029
n = 20,520
2014
2015-2019
2008-2009
2015
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
time series, panel
cross-section
cross-section
(2017)
Jenn et al.
(2018)
Jia & Chen
(2021)
Karlsson
(2017)
Kurani & Buch
(2021)
Kurani (2018)
of variance, discrete inventory, travel pattern,
choice models
Fixed effect
regression models
mixed logit model,
lognormal Poisson,
linear mixed effect
model
Mixed integer
quadratically
constrained
programming model
ANOVA, logistic
regression models
vehicle purchase plan, stated
preference experiements,
demographics
Vehicle registration data
(R.L. PolMHS Automotive)
various: survey of Virginia
drivers (stated preference),
DMV registration
GPS logging data
U.S.
Virginia
Gothenburg, Sweden
n= 83,026,589 Jan 2010 to Nov time series
2015
n = 837 (survey) Survey: March- cross-section, time series
May 2018, DMV
data: 2012-2016
n = 64 two-car not reported
households
Summary statistics,
hypothesis testing,
comparison analysis
various: survey (stated
preference through vehicle
design games), follow-up
interview
Online survey (stated
preference)
panel
cross-section
13 U.S. states (CA, OR, n= 5,336 (new- late 2014
WA, DE, MA, MA, NJ, car buying
NY, CT, ME, NH, RI, households)
VT)
California (car-owning n = 1,681 (Feb), Feb and Jun 2017 cross-section
households) n = 1,7060 (Jun)
75
-------
Citation
Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame
Sample size/
description
Data vintage
Dvnamic elements
Kurani (2019)
Kurani et al.
(2016)
Kurani et al.
(2018)
Kurani et al.
(1996)
Summary statistics,
comparison analysis
Summary statistics,
logistic regression,
principal
components
analysis, cluster
analysis
Qualitative analysis
Hypothesis testing,
choice experiments
Langbroek et
al. (2016)
Lee et al.
(2019)
Liu & Cirillo
(2017)
Matthews et al.
(2017)
Meckler-
Pacheco &
Hardman
(2022)
Morton et al.
(2016)
Narassimhan &
Johnson (2018)
Hypothesis testing,
choice experiments,
mixed logit
Bass diffusion
model, cluster
analysis
Dynamic discrete
choice model
Multiple regression
model
Online survey (stated
preference)
various: survey (stated
preference through vehicle
design games), follow-up
interview
California (car-owning
households)
13 U.S. states (CA, OR,
WA, DE, MA, MA, NJ,
NY, CT, ME, NH, RI,
VT)
Data captued in a constructed
social setting (workshops)
Mail survey: household
vehicle holdings,
demographics, travel diary,
informational video, choice
experiments
Survey: stated preference,
willingness to pay; travel
diary
Survey: demographics,
household characteristics
California (Fresno,
Sacramento, and Santa
Clara)
California (multi-car
households)
Sweden
California
Survey: stated preference Maryland
Descriptive analysis
Principal component
analysis, hierarchical
regression analysis
Fixed-effect
regression models
Mystery shopper visits
(record of dealership
experience)
Survey (sources of
engagement and where
buvers obtain information on
PEVs)
Survey: stated preference
IHS Automotive vehicle
registration data
Ontario, Canada
n = 1,681 (Feb), n = Feb and Jun 2017
1,706 (Jun)
n = 5,654 (survey),
n = 68 (interview)
Dec 2014 to Mar
2015
= 20 (Sacremento),
= 22 (Santa Clara),
= 17 (Fresno)
= 454
2014
n = 269
n = 11,037
n = 3,598 obs.,
n = 456 households
n = 95 obs.,
n= 24 dealerships
California (PEV owners) n = 5,329
U.K. (Newcastle upon n = 506
Tyne and Dundee)
U.S.
n= 523,000
not reported
2014
2012-2017
2015
2014
May to Oct 2020
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section, time series
cross-section, projection
cross-section
cross-section
winter of2011=2012 cross-section
2008-2016
panel
76
-------
Citation
Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame
Sample size/
description
Data vintage
Dynamic elements
Nazari et al.
(2019)
Neaimeh et al.
(2017)
Sheldon & Dua
(2019)
Sheldon et al.
(20 17)
Shewmake &
Jarvis (2014)
Structural equation
model, nested logit
model
Descriptive analysis,
linear regression
models
Mixed logit model
California Household Travel U. S.
Survey: revealed preference
Shin et al.
(2019)
Singer (2016)
Singer (2017)
Singer (2020)
Multinomial logit
model
Hedonic pricing
model,
nonparametric
regression models
ANOVA,
multinomial logistic
model
Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis
Descriptive analysis
driving days data
New Vehicle Experience
Study (NVES): revealed
preference
Survey: stated preference
U.K. and U.S.
U.S. (new vehicle
buyers)
California (new car
buyers)
Used car price data collected California
from newspaper, eBay and
Autotrader.com
Survey: stated preference Maryland (PEV owners) n= 1,257
n= 39,250
n = 9,000 fast
charging events; n =
12,700 driving days
n = 275,000
n = 1,261
n = 12,470
Survey: stated preference U.S.
Survey: stated preference U.S.
Survey: stated preference
(pre-, post- and follow-up)
n = 1,015
n = 1,017
Midwest. Pacific n = 9.000 fPEV
Northwest, Northeast in showcase events
the U.S.
2012-2013
various time periods
(2012-2013,2014-
2015
2015
2012
various time periods
(2006-2009, 2008-
2011)
2015-2016
2015
2017
2017-2019
Soltani-Sobh et Bionomial logit
al. (2017) share model, fixed
effect model,
random effect
model, time series
analysis
Spurlock et al. Linear probability
(2019) model
Tal et al. (2020) Descriptive analysis,
multinomial logit
model
Various public data sources AK, AL, AZ, CA, CO,
FL, GA, IL, MA, MI,
NC, NJ, NY, OH, OK.
OR, TN, VT, WY
attendees)
various sample sizes 2003-2011
March - June 2018
Tanakaetal.
(2014)
Conditional logit
model
Survey: stated interest in Bay Area n= 1,026
emerging technologies
Survey; vehicle logging data, California (PEV owners) n = 12,396 (survey); 2015-2017
interviews n = 264 (vehicle
logging); n= 18
(interview)
Survey: stated preference U.S. (CA, TX, MI, NY) n = 4,202 (U.S.), n = Feb 2012
and Japan 4,000 (Japan)
cross-section
time series, panel
cross-section
cross-section
panel
cross-section
cross-section
cross-section
panel
cross-section, time series
cross-section
time series, panel
cross-section
77
-------
Citation Methods
Data Type
Sample Frame
Wang et al.
(2019)
Wang et al.
(2022)
Correlation analysis,
linear regression
model
Latent class cluster
analysis
various data sources
30 countries
White & Sintov Hypothesis testing
(20 17)
Xu et al. (2020) Stimulus organism
response model,
hypothesis testing
Yavorskv et al. Descriptive analysis,
(2020) multinomial logit
model
Compilation of multiple data Georgia
sources: 2017 NHTS, GDOT
survey, targeted marketing
data, land use data
Survey: stated preference LA County
Survey: stated preference
China (Beijing,
Shanghai, Chongqing,
Xi'an, and Hefei)
Smartphone geolocation data Texas
about dealership visits, DMV
registration data
Zambrano-
Gutierrez et al.
(2018)
Zarazua de
Rubens et al.
(2018)
Zou et al.
(2020)
Difference-in-
differences model
Mixed methods
(qualitative,
ANOVA)
Choice experiment,
binomial logit
state-level policies and PEV
registrations
shopping experience
description (dealership visit
questionnaire, dealership
characteristics, and notes on
shopping experiences)
online survey: stated
preference
U.S.
Denmark, Finland,
Iceland, Norway and
Sweden
U.S.
Sample size/
description
Data vintage
Dvnamic elements
various sample sizes 2015
cross-section
n = 1,111
2017-2018
cross-section
n= 355
n = 692
2014
2018
cross-section
cross-section
n = 277,000 2016-2017
dealership visits, n =
195,000 vehicle
registrations
not specified (50 2010-2016
PEV models across
50 states)
n = 126 shopping 2016,2017
experiences, n= 82
car dealerships, n =
30 expert interviews
cross-section
cross-sectional, time series
cross-sectional
n = 1,028
2019
cross-sectional
78
------- |