Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption in Columbus, Ohio Market... · 2019-06-26 · Ford Fusion...
1
Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption in Columbus, Ohio Brittany Bechhold, Sarah Fischer, Chris Gates, Helena Rudoff, Carolyn Voigt SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES ENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY SPRING 2017 CAPSTONE COURSE ● The Midwest’s uptake in electric vehicles is 61% lower than the U.S. average ⇒ Lowest OEM availability, lowest public charging infrastructure ● Areas across the United States that have the highest electric vehicle uptake also have: (1) much greater model availability, (2) more extensive public charging networks, (3) more state and local policy actions to support the market ● State regulatory policy is a key driver of market availability & adoption for the early market ● Federal and state financial incentives such as tax breaks remain the greatest motivator for EV adoption ⇒ Most region-leading electric vehicle markets benefited from state-level financial incentives ● Upper Arlington residents show alignment with successful EV adoption policies: (1) state/federal incentives, (2) public charging infrastructure, (3) greater model availability ● More comprehensive EV education is necessary: consumers do not fully understand model availability, charging requirements, affordability, etcetera ● Survey results indicated discrepancies between the extent of dealership EV training and what resources or education consumers felt were actually offered ● Upgrade Ohio’s 0% loan interest program in Athens, OH demonstrates successful consumer response to EV marketing and adoption, while inviting additional sustainability initiatives ● EV inventory model used in this analysis can be adopted to further evaluate the feasibility of the Smart Columbus adoption goal using data from additional OEMs in a wider area OBJECTIVE I Objective I produced baseline data, which was used to develop a system for evaluating the feasibility of the Smart Columbus electric vehicle adoption goal. Inventories of several Ford dealerships (the targeted OEM) were quantified. Dealerships included in the study were based within the I-270 loop. OBJECTIVE II Objective II utilized surveys to gather information on dealership training, attitudes, and selling processes for EVs. Surveys were designed and then distributed to 58 contacts at 4 Columbus OEMs. Responding dealerships included: ● Germain Ford ● Germain Nissan ● Kelly BMW OBJECTIVE III Objective III developed a profile of early adopters of EVs. Using studies and surveys, a profile of early adopters was constructed to determine a specific location within the Columbus market where high concentrations of early adopters likely reside. Studies were developed by interest groups, governments, and academic groups. The literature review also informed policy types used and their efficacy in other cities, including midwestern cities similar to Columbus. OBJECTIVE IV OBJECTIVE V Brittany Bechhold (Team Leader: [email protected] ), Sustainability in Business Sarah Fischer, International Development Chris Gates, Sustainability in Business Helena Rudoff, International Development Carolyn Voigt, International Development Number of Available EVs by Type 12 New Hybrids 21 New Plug-In Hybrids 2 Used Hybrids 1 Used Plug-In Hybrids Available EV Models Ford Fusion Hybrid Ford C-MAX Hybrid Ford Fusion Energi Ford C-MAX Energi Toyota Prius 2 Policies Most Likely To Motivate EV Purchase % of Responses State/federal financial incentives (i.e tax breaks) 40.3% Increased public charging infrastructure 25.4% Greater model availability in Columbus 22.4% Parking perks (i.e. EV-designated spots) 7.5% Other 4.5% ABSTRACT DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES TEAM INFORMATION Objective I generated an inventory quantification to create baseline data regarding the availability of electric vehicles in Columbus. For Objective II, a number of Columbus dealerships belonging to various OEMs were surveyed. The results of this survey were quantified, and followed with more in-depth interviews to gather qualitative opinions and experiences concerning challenges in electric vehicle sales. Objective III produced a literature review, and developed a profile of early adopters that might be extrapolated to the Columbus market. Policies that have effectively increased EV adoption in other cities were also included in the review. Objectives IV and V synthesized the literature review, primary survey demographics, and Census data to produce and conduct a secondary survey of potential EV adopters. The resulting survey was used to assess demand for electric vehicles in Upper Arlington and feasible EV adoption policies that most resonated with potential consumers. I. Research EV models at one original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to determine availability. II. Survey local EV dealers to identify supply-side barriers to EV adoption in Columbus. III. Review literature concerning any patterns of early adoption of EVs in U.S. cities. IV. Determine where, within the Columbus area, early adopters likely reside. V. Identify and catalogue motivations and barriers to EV adoption in Columbus. This market study was developed in response to Priority 3 of the Smart Columbus Project: “Priority 3: Consumer EV Adoption, Initiatives 6-8”. The primary task was electric vehicle (EV) market research, looking into available consumer o ptions as well as supply- and demand-side barriers to adoption in Columbus. The economic analysis used in this study sought to understand the current challenges within this market and develop recommendations for marketing strategies for the City. Two surveys conducted in Objective V of both current and potential EV owners indicated large discrepancies in perceived barriers of EV adoption: current EV owners claimed that range was the most significant barrier to EV adoption, and potential owners claimed that finances were the most significant barrier. This suggests that the actual up-front costs and long-term savings associated with EVs are not widely known to potential adopters. Lack of charging infrastructure was a secondary barrier to adoption for both survey groups. While nearly half (48.6%) of potential EV adopters surveyed claimed to have been previously interested in owning an EV, 54.3% identified as only “relatively informed” concerning the benefits of EVs, and 28.6% identified as “not educated as all”. Despite current EV education levels, 68.3% of potential EV adopters responded that they would be willing to learn more about the benefits of electric vehicles. Objective IV utilised data from the 2010 US Census, in GIS format, and the 2015 American Communities Survey to identify Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) based on the demographic categories collected in Objective III. While there were many locations aligning with the results of the literature review, the highest-ranking ZCTA in this analysis was zip code 43221: the central and northern areas of Upper Arlington. This area was targeted for surveying in Objective V. American Fact Finder. (2015). Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml TIGER/Line® with selected demographic and economic data. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html Mohamed, M. et al. (2016). Identifying and characterizing potential electric vehicle adopters in Canada: A two-stage modelling approach. Transport Policy, 52 100–112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.006 Zachary Shahan. (2016). CleanTechnica Report: “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Retrieved February 28, 2017, from https://tinyurl.com/lm7mk9a Irene Kwan et al. (2016). Identifying the leading regional electric vehicle markets in the United States (pp. 1–12). The International Council on Clean Transportation. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ld6r75w COLUMBUS EARLY ADOPTER PROFILE Demography Literature Review Findings Current Ohio EV Owners Survey Analysis Inputs Age Young to middle-aged (Mohamed et al., 2016) 37.5% of current owners are between the ages of 25-44; 62.5% are 65 or older 20-44 years old Sex 93.5% of EV drivers are Male (Shahan, 2015) 100% of current owners identified as male Male Race Not specifically addressed 100% of current owners identified as white High Percentage White Household Type Single detached dwellings/households; protected garage (Mohamed et al., 2016) 75% reported living in a house as opposed to an apartment, condo, or other Single unit detached Annual Household Income 58% of EV drivers indicated their annual household income was over $100K (Shahan, 2015) 50% of households reported >$100,000 of income before taxes >$100,000 per year Educational Attainment 42% postgrads (JD Power) 87.5% of current owners have received postgraduate degrees High percentage graduate degree CONSUMER BARRIERS TO EV ADOPTION DEALERS’ PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO EV ADOPTION ● Maxton Chevrolet ● Ricart Ford DEALERSHIPS THAT OFFER EMPLOYEE EV TRAINING 80% of dealers surveyed responded that they “offered EV training” and had “EV experts” at their location. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES METHODS
Transcript of Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption in Columbus, Ohio Market... · 2019-06-26 · Ford Fusion...
Barriers to Electric Vehicle Adoption in Columbus, OhioBrittany Bechhold, Sarah Fischer, Chris Gates, Helena Rudoff, Carolyn Voigt
SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCESENVIRONMENT, ECONOMY, DEVELOPMENT, AND SUSTAINABILITY SPRING 2017 CAPSTONE COURSE
● The Midwest’s uptake in electric vehicles is 61% lower than the U.S. average⇒ Lowest OEM availability, lowest public charging infrastructure
● Areas across the United States that have the highest electric vehicle uptake also have: (1) much greater model availability, (2) more extensive public charging networks, (3) more state and local policy actions to support the market
● State regulatory policy is a key driver of market availability & adoption for the early market
● Federal and state financial incentives such as tax breaks remain the greatest motivator for EV adoption⇒ Most region-leading electric vehicle markets benefited from
state-level financial incentives
● Upper Arlington residents show alignment with successful EV adoption policies: (1) state/federal incentives, (2) public charging infrastructure, (3) greater model availability
● More comprehensive EV education is necessary: consumers do not fully understand model availability, charging requirements, affordability, etcetera
● Survey results indicated discrepancies between the extent of dealership EV training and what resources or education consumers felt were actually offered
● Upgrade Ohio’s 0% loan interest program in Athens, OH demonstrates successful consumer response to EV marketing and adoption, while inviting additional sustainability initiatives
● EV inventory model used in this analysis can be adopted to further evaluate the feasibility of the Smart Columbus adoption goal using data from additional OEMs in a wider area
OBJECTIVE IObjective I produced baseline data, which was used to develop a system for evaluating the feasibility of the Smart Columbus electric vehicle adoption goal. Inventories of several Ford dealerships (the targeted OEM) were quantified. Dealerships included in the study were based within the I-270 loop.
OBJECTIVE IIObjective II utilized surveys to gather information on dealership training, attitudes, and selling processes for EVs. Surveys were designed and then distributed to 58 contacts at 4 Columbus OEMs. Responding dealerships included:
● Germain Ford● Germain Nissan● Kelly BMW
OBJECTIVE III Objective III developed a profile of early adopters of EVs. Using studies and surveys, a profile of early adopters was constructed to determine a specific location within the Columbus market where high concentrations of early adopters likely reside. Studies were developed by interest groups, governments, and academic groups. The literature review also informed policy types used and their efficacy in other cities, including midwestern cities similar to Columbus.
OBJECTIVE IV
OBJECTIVE V
Brittany Bechhold (Team Leader: [email protected]), Sustainability in BusinessSarah Fischer, International Development Chris Gates, Sustainability in Business Helena Rudoff, International Development Carolyn Voigt, International Development
Number of Available EVs by Type
12 New Hybrids
21 New Plug-In Hybrids
2 Used Hybrids
1 Used Plug-In Hybrids
Available EV Models
Ford Fusion Hybrid
Ford C-MAX Hybrid
Ford Fusion Energi
Ford C-MAX Energi
Toyota Prius 2
Policies Most Likely To Motivate EV Purchase % of Responses
State/federal financial incentives (i.e tax breaks) 40.3%
Increased public charging infrastructure 25.4%
Greater model availability in Columbus 22.4%
Parking perks (i.e. EV-designated spots) 7.5%
Other 4.5%
ABSTRACT
DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
TEAM INFORMATION
Objective I generated an inventory quantification to create baseline data regarding the availability of electric vehicles in Columbus. For Objective II, a number of Columbus dealerships belonging to various OEMs were surveyed. The results of this survey were quantified, and followed with more in-depth interviews to gather qualitative opinions and experiences concerning challenges in electric vehicle sales. Objective III produced a literature review, and developed a profile of early adopters that might be extrapolated to the Columbus market. Policies that have effectively increased EV adoption in other cities were also included in the review. Objectives IV and V synthesized the literature review, primary survey demographics, and Census data to produce and conduct a secondary survey of potential EV adopters. The resulting survey was used to assess demand for electric vehicles in Upper Arlington and feasible EV adoption policies that most resonated with potential consumers.
I. Research EV models at one original equipment manufacturer (OEM) to determine availability.
II. Survey local EV dealers to identify supply-side barriers to EV adoption in Columbus.
III. Review literature concerning any patterns of early adoption of EVs in U.S. cities.
IV. Determine where, within the Columbus area, early adopters likely reside.
V. Identify and catalogue motivations and barriers to EV adoption in Columbus.
This market study was developed in response to Priority 3 of the Smart Columbus Project: “Priority 3: Consumer EV Adoption, Initiatives 6-8”. The primary task was electric vehicle (EV) market research, looking into available consumer options as well as supply- and demand-side barriers to adoption in Columbus. The economic analysis used in this study sought to understand the current challenges within this market and develop recommendations for marketing strategies for the City.
Two surveys conducted in Objective V of both current and potential EV owners indicated large discrepancies in perceived barriers of EV adoption: current EV owners claimed that range was the most significant barrier to EV adoption, and potential owners claimed that finances were the most significant barrier. This suggests that the actual up-front costs and long-term savings associated with EVs are not widely known to potential adopters. Lack of charging infrastructure was a secondary barrier to adoption for both survey groups. While nearly half (48.6%) of potential EV adopters surveyed claimed to have been previously interested in owning an EV, 54.3% identified as only “relatively informed” concerning the benefits of EVs, and 28.6% identified as “not educated as all”. Despite current EV education levels, 68.3% of potential EV adopters responded that they would be willing to learn more about the benefits of electric vehicles.
Objective IV utilised data from the 2010 US Census, in GIS format, and the 2015 American Communities Survey to identify Zip Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA) based on the demographic categories collected in Objective III. While there were many locations aligning with the results of the literature review, the highest-ranking ZCTA in this analysis was zip code 43221: the central and northern areas of Upper Arlington. This area was targeted for surveying in Objective V.
American Fact Finder. (2015). Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml TIGER/Line® with selected demographic and economic data. (2010). Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.htmlMohamed, M. et al. (2016). Identifying and characterizing potential electric vehicle adopters in Canada: A two-stage modelling approach. Transport Policy, 52 100–112 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.07.006Zachary Shahan. (2016). CleanTechnica Report: “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Retrieved February 28, 2017, from https://tinyurl.com/lm7mk9a Irene Kwan et al. (2016). Identifying the leading regional electric vehicle markets in the United States (pp. 1–12). The International Council on Clean Transportation. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ld6r75w
To-Do:-make sure consistency in text-box and visuals size and that they align with everything underneath them-add to references-make sure consistent font sizes throughout paragraphs AND in tables (and graphs?)-make sure consistency in writing style (use of we/our-I don’t care if we use them or not, but let’s make sure it’s the same throughout)-further expand upon the discussion and results section-complete references
COLUMBUS EARLY ADOPTER PROFILEDemography Literature Review Findings Current Ohio EV Owners Survey Analysis Inputs
Age Young to middle-aged (Mohamed et al., 2016)
37.5% of current owners are between the ages of 25-44; 62.5% are 65 or older
20-44 years old
Sex 93.5% of EV drivers are Male (Shahan, 2015)
100% of current owners identified as male Male
Race Not specifically addressed 100% of current owners identified as white High Percentage White
Household Type
Single detached dwellings/households; protected garage (Mohamed et al., 2016)
75% reported living in a house as opposed to an apartment, condo, or other
Single unit detached
Annual Household Income
58% of EV drivers indicated their annual household income was over $100K (Shahan, 2015)
50% of households reported >$100,000 of income before taxes
>$100,000 per year
Educational Attainment
42% postgrads (JD Power) 87.5% of current owners have received postgraduate degrees
High percentage graduate degree
CONSUMER BARRIERS TO EV ADOPTION
DEALERS’ PERCEIVED BARRIERS TO EV ADOPTION
● Maxton Chevrolet● Ricart Ford
DEALERSHIPS THAT OFFER EMPLOYEE EV TRAINING
80% of dealers surveyed responded that they “offered EV training” and had “EV experts” at their location.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
METHODS
