版权说明:本文档由用户提供并上传,收益归属内容提供方,若内容存在侵权,请进行举报或认领
文档简介
ATaleofTwoInvestments:
ChargingStationsand
PurchaseSubsidiesforEV
Adoption
Yanjun(Penny)Liao,BeiLuo,andBeiaSpiller
WorkingPaper24-12
July2024
AbouttheAuthors
Yanjun(Penny)LiaoisaneconomistandfellowatResourcesfortheFuture(RFF).
Herresearchprimarilyfocusesonissuesofnaturaldisasterriskmanagementand
climateadaptation.Shehasstudiedtheimpactsofdisastersonlocalgovernment
budgets,housingmarkets,anddemographicchanges.Herongoingworkinvestigateshowdisasterinsuranceinteractswiththehousingandmortgagesector,aswellastheeconomicandfiscalimpactsofadaptationpoliciesonlocalcommunities.LiaoearnedherPhDineconomicsfromUCSanDiegoin2019andconductedherpostdoctoral
researchduring2019–21attheWhartonRiskCenteratUniversityofPennsylvania.
BeiLuoisaneconomistatAmazonwhoearnedherPhDfromtheUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego,in2023.
BeiaSpillerisafellowandthedirectorforRFF’sTransportationProgram.Priorto
joiningRFF,shewasLeadSeniorEconomistatEnvironmentalDefenseFund,where
sheworkedforalmostadecade.SheisalsoaBoardmemberfortheAssociation
ofEnvironmentalandResourceEconomists.Spillerisanenergyeconomist,with
experienceworkingonelectricityandtransportationissues.DuringhertimeatEDF,
sheparticipatedinmanyelectricutilityproceedingsinNYandCA,withagoalof
usheringinacleaner,moreefficientandequitableenergysystem.Shealsohasmanyyearsofexperienceworkinginthetransportationsector.Hermorerecenteffortshavefocusedaroundelectricvehiclesandenvironmentaljustice,exploringsomeofthemostpressingissuesaroundelectriccar,truckandbusadoption.Herpublicationsrange
acrosstheenergyspace,withalargefocusonidentifyingenvironmental,communityandhealthimpactsofrenewableenergyresourcesandenergypolicies.
AbouttheProject
ThispaperwaswrittenbeforeBei’semploymentatAmazon.
Acknowledgements
WethankSophiePesekforoutstandingresearchassistance.
AboutRFF
ResourcesfortheFuture(RFF)isanindependent,nonprofitresearchinstitutionin
Washington,DC.Itsmissionistoimproveenvironmental,energy,andnaturalresourcedecisionsthroughimpartialeconomicresearchandpolicyengagement.RFFis
committedtobeingthemostwidelytrustedsourceofresearchinsightsandpolicysolutionsleadingtoahealthyenvironmentandathrivingeconomy.
Workingpapersareresearchmaterialscirculatedbytheirauthorsforpurposesof
informationanddiscussion.Theyhavenotnecessarilyundergoneformalpeerreview.TheviewsexpressedherearethoseoftheindividualauthorsandmaydifferfromthoseofotherRFFexperts,itsofficers,oritsdirectors.
SharingOurWork
OurworkisavailableforsharingandadaptationunderanAttribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives4.0International(CCBY-NC-ND4.0)license.Youcancopyandredistributeourmaterialinanymediumorformat;youmustgive
appropriatecredit,providealinktothelicense,andindicateifchangesweremade,andyoumaynotapplyadditionalrestrictions.Youmaydosoinanyreasonable
manner,butnotinanywaythatsuggeststhelicensorendorsesyouoryouruse.Youmaynotusethematerialforcommercialpurposes.Ifyouremix,transform,orbuilduponthematerial,youmaynotdistributethemodifiedmaterial.Formoreinformation,visit
/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
.
1
ATaleofTwoInvestments:ChargingStationsand
PurchaseSubsidiesforEVAdoption*Yanjun(Penny)Liaot1,BeiLuo‡2,andElishebaSpiller§.1
1ResourcesfortheFuture
2UniversityofCaliforniaSanDiegoJuly17,2024
Abstract
Thispaperstudiestheinteractionbetweenfinancialpurchasesubsidiesandcharg-inginfrastructuredevelopmentinpromotingelectricvehicle(EV)adoption.LeveragingsurveydatafromtheCleanVehicleRebateProject(CVRP)inCaliforniaandspatialinformationonchargingstations,wefindasignificantpositiveimpactofhighercharg-ingstationdensityonself-reportedimportanceofCVRPrebatesinEVpurchasedeci-sions.Theresultsexhibitsubstantialheterogeneitybetweenlower-andhigher-incomeindividuals,likelyduetotheirdifferentchargingneeds.Ourfindingsrevealacomple-mentaryrelationshipbetweenimprovingchargingprevalenceandprovidingpurchasesubsidies,whichsuggeststhatahybridpolicycombiningthesetwotypesofincentivesmighthelpoptimizetheoverallcost-effectivenessinacceleratingEVadoption.
*WethankSophiePesekforoutstandingresearchassistance.Allerrorsareourown.tContact:
yliao@.
‡Contact:
b7luo@.
ThispaperwaswrittenbeforeBei’semploymentatAmazon.§Contact:
bspiller@
2
1Introduction
Thedirectemissionofcarbondioxidefromtheglobaltransportationsectorwasalmost8Gtin2022accordingtotheInternationalEnergyAgency,representingasignificantcon-tributortoglobalwarmingandclimatechange.Transportationactivitiesarealsoprimarysourcesofcriteriaairpollutants,
1
worseninglocalairqualityandthreateninghumanhealth.Toreducegreenhousegasemissionsandairpollution,governmentsemployawidearrayofpoliciestodecarbonizethetransportationsector,withafocusonpromotingenergyefficiencyandencouragingtheadoptionofzero-emissionvehicles(ZEVs),suchasbatteryelectricve-hicles(BEVs)orfuelcellelectricvehicles(FCEVs).InCalifornia,theOfficeoftheGovernorissuedExecutiveOrderB-48-18,whichsetsanambitioustargetof1.5millionZEVsontheroadby2025and5millionby2023,followingthelong-termobjectiveofnetzerocarbonemissionsby2050.Tomeettheseessentialmilestones,thestategovernmentsoughttoac-celeratetheZEVmarketbyloweringthecostofEVpurchases,increasingtheavailabilityofchargingstations,andprovidingothernonmonetaryincentives,suchashigh-occupancyvehicle(HOV)laneaccessandpriorityparking.
Awidevarietyofsubsidyprogramsaimtoincreasetheaffordabilityofzero-orlow-emissionvehiclesallovertheworld.Atthefederallevel,theInflationReductionActprovidedupto$7,500intaxcreditsfornewEVpurchases
2
andupto$2,500forusedEVpurchases.Atthestatelevel,California’sCleanVehicleRebateProject(CVRP)offerssubsidiesfrom$1,000to$7,500forthepurchaseorleaseofplug-inelectricvehicles(PEVs)(includingBEVsandplug-inhybridelectricvehicles(PHEVs)andfuelcellvehicles.TheCleanCars4All(CC4A)program(formerlytheEnhancedFleetModernizationPlus-UpProgram)grantsupto$9,500forincome-qualifiedcustomerstoreplacetheirolder,high-pollutingvehicleswithnewer,low-emittingvehicles.Theseprogramsareimportantforadoption,astheliteraturehasfoundpositiveassociationsbetweenfinancialpurchaseincentivesandhigherEVmarketshares(
Hardmanetal.,
2017;
Jennetal.,
2018
).
However,providingextensivepurchaseincentivesforEVadoptionimposesasubstan-tialfinancialburdenonlocalgovernments.Accordingtoa2022reportbytheLegislativeAnalyst’sOffice(LAO),theCVRPandCC4Anecessitateinvestmentpackagesof$525mil-lionand$400million,respectively,forfiscalyear2021–2022.Anincreaseinchargingsupply
1Accordingtostandardsassociatedwithhumanhealthandtheenvironment,theEPAhasidentifiedsixcriteriaairpollutants:carbonmonoxide,lead,nitrogenoxides,ground-levelozone,particlepollution(alsocalled”particulatematter”),andsulfuroxides.
2Themagnitudeofthetaxcreditdependsonthecountryoforiginofthemineralswithinthebatteryandthebatterymanufacturingandhasbothincomeandvehiclepricelimits.Formoreinformationonthesetaxcredits,see
thisblog.
3
equipmentisneededforEVcustomerswithoutaccesstoprivatehomeorworkplacechargingandtoalleviaterangeanxietyofEVdriversforlong-distancetravel.
BothCaliforniaandthefederalgovernmenthaveallocatedbillionsofdollarstofundingchargingstationinvestments.TheCaliforniaEnergyCommissionimplementedtheCalifor-niaElectricVehicleInfrastructureProjecttofacilitatethedevelopmentanddeploymentofcharginginfrastructurethroughoutthestatewithtotalprojectcostsof$50million.Thefederalgovernmenthastwomajorprograms,bothenabledthroughtheInvestmentInfras-tructureandJobsAct.ThefirstistheNationalElectricVehicleInfrastructureProgram(NEVI),whichhasallocated$5billiontostatestoinvestin(primarilyfast)chargingsta-tionsalongmajorhighwaysandconnectedroadways.ThesecondistheChargingandFuelingInfrastructureGrantProgram(CFI),whichprovides$2.5billioninfundingover5yearstolocalcommunities,cities,andtownstoinvestin(primarilyLevel2)chargingstationswithincommunities.TheseprogramsareimportantforEVadoption,asstudieshavedemonstratedtheimportantroleofchargingstationinvestments(
Zhengetal.,
2012;
Lieven,
2015;
Tietge
etal.
,
2016
;
BongesIIIandLusk,
2016;
Mieleetal.,
2020)
.
Giventhetremendousexpensesoftheseprograms,evaluatingthecost-effectivenessofdifferentpoliciesandweighingtheirrelativevaluesfromtheconsumers’perspectiveisvitalforinformingongoingpoliciesthatpromoteEVmarketgrowth.Thisinvolvesunderstand-ingfundamentaldeterminantsintheconsumerdecisionprocessandpotentialinteractionsbetweenvariouspolicies,particularlyfinancialpurchasesubsidiesandchargingnetworkde-velopment.However,robustanalysesofhowtheseincentivesinteracttoaccelerateEVadoptionareverylimited.Itisanopenquestionwhethertheavailabilityofpublicchargingfacilitieswillaltertheimportanceofpurchasesubsidies.
Intheory,theimpactofincreasedaccessibilityofpubliccharginginfrastructureonthecost-effectivenessofEVrebateprogramscouldbetwofold.First,amoreabundantsupplyofrefuelingstationswillincreasecustomers’willingnesstopurchasePEVsbymitigatingconcernsaboutrangelimitationandrechargingchallenges.Asaresult,itcouldnotonlydecreasethesizeofthesubsidyrequiredtoincentivizetheadoptionofEVsbutrenderanyexistingsubsidylesseffective,asfewerindividualsmayrequireittoincentivizeEVpur-chases.Second,agreaterprevalenceofcharginginfrastructureincreasesthesubstitutabilitybetweenPEVsandtraditionalinternalcombustionenginevehicles,attractingmoreofthegeneralpopulationtotransitiontoPEVs.SuchincreasedpurchaseintentionsamongthepublicexpandsthesetofpotentialEVcustomersandtherebymayalsoincreasethenum-berofpotential“additional”participantsinrebateprograms.Therefore,whetherincreasedavailabilityofchargingstationsisadvantageousordisadvantageoustothecost-effectivenessofrebateincentivesistheoreticallyundeterminedandwarrantsempiricalinvestigation.
4
Thisisalsoimportantwhenconsideringdifferencesacrossincome,asavastmajorityofvehiclesubsidieshaveaccruedtohigher-incomehouseholdsthataremuchmorelikelyto
purchaseaPEVcomparedtolower-incomeones(Leeetal.,
2019;
MuehleggerandRapson,
2019
).However,thesewealthieradoptersaretheleastlikelytoconsiderthemonetaryincen-tivesdecisiveintheirEVpurchasedecisions.Asaresult,aconsiderableshareofparticipantsinincentiveprogramstendtobe“nonadditional,”raisingwidespreadconcernsabouttheircost-effectiveness.Severalempiricalstudieshavedirectlyestimatedtheadditionalityofex-istingrebateprograms.Forinstance,
SheldonandDua
(
2019a
)findthatmerely17percentofPEVsalesinthemodelyear2015areattributabletothenondiscriminatingUSfederaltaxsubsidy,whichimpliesanexcessivecostof$35,601associatedwithonlyoneadditionalPEVpurchase.Incontrast,theEnhancedFleetModernizationPilotProgram(commonlyknownas“ReplaceYourRide”(RYR))isfoundtobemorecost-effectivethanthefederaltaxincentives,asitgrantssubsidiesexclusivelyforlower-incomeindividualsindisadvan-tagedcommunities.
SheldonandDua
(2019b)substantiatethattheadditionalityofthe
RYRprogramismorethan44percentforPEVadoptionand78percentforhybridelectricvehicles.
Despitetherichevidenceontheeffectsofeitherpurchasesubsidiesorchargingnetworkdevelopment,remarkablylittleattentionhasbeendrawntotheinteractionbetweenthetwo.Althoughsomestudieshavecomparedtherelativeeffectivenessofthesetwopolicyinterven-tionsassubstitutes(
Sikesetal.,
2010;
Lietal.,
2017
),simulationanalyseshavesuggestedthathybridapproachescombiningpublicchargingandcleanvehiclerebatesengendermoresubstantialEVadoptionthanisolatedindividualincentives(
SilviaandKrause,
2016;
Miele
etal.
,
2020;
Lednaetal.,
2022
).However,thesesimulation-basedstudiesrelyonvarioussimplifyingassumptionstocharacterizetheinterdependenteffectsofchargingaccessibilityandpurchasesubsidies,whichmayormaynotaccordwithempiricalevidence.Forinstance,
Lednaetal.
(2022)assumethatfullovernightchargingisavailableforallEVdrivers,which
failstodemonstratetheimportanceofpublicinfrastructure,particularlyforthelargenum-berofhouseholdsthatdonothaveaccesstoanexclusivechargingoutlet(
Trautetal.,
2013
).Therefore,theinteractionbetweenthesetwoformsofpolicyinterventionsistheoreticallyambiguousandcallsforadditionalempiricalinvestigation.
Thispaperempiricallyexaminestherelationshipbetweencharginginfrastructurepreva-lenceandtheadditionalityofEVsubsidies,leveragingsurveydatafromCVRPandgeospa-tialdataonpublicchargingstationsclosetothesurveyrespondents.TheCVRPsurveyprovidesdirectmeasurementsofparticipants’perceptionsabouttheimportanceofCVRPrebatesandotherfinancialincentivesintheirPEVpurchasedecision,allowingustopreciselyidentifyhowCVRPadditionalityrespondstoevolvingcharginginfrastructureaccessibility.
5
Aftercontrollingforcomprehensivedemographicandvehicle-relatedcharacteristics,wefindasignificantpositiveassociationbetweentheadditionalityofrebateprogramsanddensityofchargingfacilitiesinbothlocal(within5miles)anddistant(upto100milesareas).
Theeffectsexhibitconsiderableheterogeneitybetweenlower-andhigher-incomeindi-viduals.Inparticular,theformerwholiveclosetochargingstationsaremorelikelytoreportthattheCVRPsubsidywascriticalintheirPEVpurchasedecisionthanotherswithsimilarincomebutloweraccesstopubliccharging,whereashigher-incomeEVcustomersdonotresponddifferently.Morechargingfacilitiesnearby,therefore,enhancetheaverageincentiveeffectsofcleanvehiclerebatesbyattractingmore“additional”adoptersfromthelower-incomepopulation.Precisely,aunitincreaseinthenumberofchargingstationsper10,000peoplewithin5milescausesa0.76percentincreaseintheprobabilityofalower-incomeindividualstating“wouldnotpurchaseorleasethePEVwithouttheCVRPrebate”and,analogously,a0.71percentincreaseintheprobabilityoftheirreportingthehighestlevelofimportancetothesurveyquestion“howimportantwastheCVRPrebateinmakingitpossibletoacquireaPEV,”holdingallotherfactorsequal.Incontrast,chargingsta-tiondensitywithin5mileshasnostatisticallysignificanteffectontheimportanceoftheCVRPrebateamongthehigher-incomepublic,perhapsbecausetheyaremorelikelytohaveat-homecharging.
Whenabroaderareaisconsidered,chargingavailabilityatgreaterdistancesappearstostimulatemorewidespreadPEVadoptioninbothlower-andhigher-incomegroups.Theestimationresultsshowthatincreasingchargingstationdensitywithin100milesresultsina13percentand7.3percentincrease,respectively,intheoddsofalower-incomeandhigher-incomeindividualconsideringtheCVRPrebatehighlyessential.Theseeffectssuggestthat,unlikehomecharging,rangeanxietyfactorsintoEVadoptiondecisionforbothgroups.Nevertheless,theimpactsaremoresubstantialforlower-incomedrivers,againhighlightingtheirgreaterdependenceonpubliccharging.Furthermore,wefindthattheseimpactsaremoresignificantforlower-incomecarbuyerswholiveinlow-densityareasandreplaceavehiclewiththenewEV,demonstratingevenfurthertheimportanceofrefininghowchargingstationinvestmentsandsubsidiesaretargetedsuchastomaximizetheadditionalityoftheseprograms.
Tothebestofourknowledge,thisanalysispresentsthefirstattempttoempiricallyestimatethecausalrelationshipbetweencharginginfrastructureprevalenceandtheaddi-tionalityofcleanvehiclesubsidies.TheCVRPsurveydataprovideuniqueadvantagestomeasuringtheadditionalityofvariousincentivesinpurchasedecisionsfromtheperspectiveofPEVadopters,allowingustolinkchangesintheirdecisionmakingwiththeexpansionofchargingnetworks.
6
Theremainderofthepaperisorganizedasfollows.Section
2
introducesthepolicybackgroundoftheCVRPandthedata.Section
3
providesatheoreticalinterpretationofpotentialimpactsbasedonamotivatingexample.WepresenttheempiricalframeworkinSection
4
andestimationresultsinSection
5.
TheconcludingremarksandpolicyimplicationsareprovidedinSection
6.
2PolicyBackgroundandData
2.1CVRP
Californiahasalwaysbeenapioneerincombatingclimatechangethroughdecarboniza-tionandelectrificationofthetransportationsector.Toachievetheambitioustargetof5millionon-roadZEVsby2030,CaliforniaAirResourcesBoard(CARB)launchedCVRPin2012toreducefinancialbarrierstocleanvehicleadoption.Inparticular,CVRPoffersgener-ouscashrebatesforthepurchaseorleaseofnewlight-dutyPEVs,FCEVs,andzero-emissionmotorcycles(ZEMs).
CVRPwasinitiallyimplementedonafirst-come-first-servebasiscontingentuponfundsavailability,withnoeligibilitycriteriabasedonfinancialstatusatitsinception,raisingcon-cernsaboutinequitablerebatedistributionandlowcost-effectiveness.Tomaketherebatemoreaccessibleandbeneficialforlower-incomeindividuals,CARBestablishedincomeeligi-bilityandincreasedrebateamountsforthosewithannualgrossincomesbelow300percentofthefederalpovertylevel(FPL)inMarch2016.Theincomecapsandmaximumper-vehiclestandardandincreasedrebatesduringourstudyperiod(fromSeptember1,2012toDecem-ber29,2019)arepresentedinTable
1
.3
BeforeMarch2016,CVRPgrantedthepurchaseorleaseofeligiblevehiclesupto$5,000forFCEVs,$2,500forBEVs,$1,500forPHEVs,and$900forZEMs.Forparticipantswithincomesbelow300percentoftheFPLwhopurchasedorleasedtheirvehiclesbetweenMarch29,2016,andOctober31,2016,therebateamountswereraisedby$1,500foreachvehicle.IftheirpurchaseswereonorafterNovember1,2016,therebateamountswereincreasedby$2,000.Inaddition,incomecapsweresetat$250kforsingletaxfilers(includingmarriedfilingseparately),$340kforhead-of-householdfilers,and$500kforjointfilersonMarch29,2016.Thesethresholdswereadjustedto$150k,$204k,and$300konNovember1,2016,respectively.Consumerswithincomeabovetheincome
capswerenoteligibleforCVRPrebatesunlesstheyacquiredFCEVs.
3TheCVRPincomecapsandmaximumper-vehiclestandardandincreasedrebatesafter2019aredis-playedinAppendixTable
A1.
7
Table1:CVRPMaximumRebateAmountsforVehiclesPurchased/Leased2012–2019
Filingstatus
Grossannualincomelevel
Vehicletype
FCEV
BEV
PHEV
ZEM
I.BeforeMarch29,2016
Standardrebate
N/A
N/A
$5,000
$2,500
$1,500
$900
II.FromMarch29,2016toOct31,2016
Increasedrebate
forlow/moderate
income
Grossannual
householdincome
≤300%ofFPL
$6,500
$4,000
$3,000
Not
eligible
Standardrebate
Individual
300%ofFPLto$250k
$5,000
$2,500
$1,500
$900
Headofhousehold
300%ofFPLto$340k
Joint
300%ofFPLto$500k
Incomecap
Individual
>$250k
$5,000
Noteligible
Headofhousehold
>$340k
Joint
>$500k
III.OnorAfterNovember1,2016
Increasedrebate
forlow/moderate
income
Grossannual
householdincome
≤300%ofFPL
$7,000
$4,500
$3,500
Not
eligible
Standardrebate
Individual
300%ofFPLto$150k
$5,000
$2,500
$1,500
$900
Headofhousehold
300%ofFPLto$204k
Joint
300%ofFPLto$300k
Incomecap
Individual
>$150k
$5,000
Noteligible
Headofhousehold
>$204k
Joint
>$300k
8
Figure1:NumberofCVRPSurveyRespondents
2.2Data
CVRPSurveyResponses
TheprimarydatausedinthisanalysisareobtainedfromavoluntaryconsumersurveyadministeredtoallCVRPparticipantswhopurchasedorleasedPEVs(excludingFCEVsandZEMs)since2012.Ourdatainclude65,643responseswithvehiclepurchaseorleasedatesfromSeptember1,2012,toDecember29,2019.Figure
1
showsthegeographicdistributionoftherespondents.Asexpected,theyareclusteredatthemorepopulatedZCTAsnearmajorcities.
Thissurveycontainsinformationabouthouseholddemographics,housingcharacteristics,factorsinpurchaseorleasedecisions,initialinterestinPEVs,anddealershipexperience.OfparticularinteresttoouranalysisareaseriesofquestionsregardingtheimportanceofcleanvehiclesubsidiesinthePEVacquisitiondecision,including“WouldyouhavepurchasedorleasedyourPEVwithouttheCVRPrebate?”and“Howimportantwasthestaterebate(CVRP)inmakingitpossibletoacquireaPEV?”ThedistributionofresponsesforeachquestionrelatedtotheimpactsofpurchaseincentivesareexhibitedinTable
2.
Descriptivestatisticsofselecteddemographics,housingconditions,andvehicle-relatedcharacteristics
9
aredisplayedinTable
3.
Consideringthepotentialdifferencesbetweenlower-andhigher-incomeindividualsinEV
adoption(BeresteanuandLi,
2011;
MuehleggerandRapson,
2022),wereportdescriptive
statisticsforlower-andhigher-incomeparticipantsseparatelyinthelastfourcolumnsofTable
2
andTable
3
forcomparison.Specifically,thelower-andhigher-incomegroupshaveanannualgrossincomelessthanandmorethan$100,000,respectively.
4
AsshowninTable
2
,lower-incomerespondentsaremorelikelytoconsidertheCVRPrebateessentialintheirpurchaseorleasedecisions.Inparticular,theyaremorelikelytoreportthattheywouldnothavepurchasedorleasedaPEVwithouttheCVRPrebateandtovalueitas“veryimportant”or“extremelyimportant”inmakingitpossibletoacquireaPEV
.5
Similarly,lower-incomeindividualsalsotendtovalueotherincentiveprogramsmoreandhavealowerinitialinterestinPEVsonaverage
.6
Inaddition,lower-incomerespondentsalsoattachgreaterimportancetoworkplacechargingorfreechargingawayfromhome,whichisinlinewithourexpectationthattheytendtodependmoreonpublicinfrastructureduetolimitedaccesstohomecharging.Table
3
alsoshowsthatasubstantiallylowerpercentageoflower-incomerespondentsliveinadetachedsingle-familyhouseorownaresidencecomparedtothehigher-incomeones.
Onecaveatinusingthisdatasetistheno-responsebias,whicharisesinvoluntarysurveyswherealowrateofresponsescanskewtheresults.Althoughapproximately75percentofeligiblePEVshaveobtainedCVRPrebates,thetakeuprateoftheCVRPconsumersurveyisaround23percent.Toimprovetherepresentativenessofthesurveysamples,CARBappliedaconventionalrankingmethod,theiterativeproportionalfitting(IPF)procedure,
7
togenerateresponseweightsbasedontheapplicationinformationofallparticipants.Weleveragetheweighteddatatoconductrobustnesschecksforourbaselineunweightedregressionsandobtainhighlyconsistentresults.Weprefertheunweightedestimatesduetotheobservedweakcorrelationbetweentheweightsandouroutcomevariables.Alldescriptivestatisticsaredisplayedbasedonoriginalunweighteddatainaccordancewithourbaselineestimation.
4Thelackofgranularityinincomecategoriesintheoriginaldataandtheabsenceoftaxfilinginformationhinderourabilitytogroupindividualsintoloworhighfinancialstatusmoreprecisely.Althoughthecutoffforourlower-incomegroupissignificantlyhigherthanconventionaldefinitions,itisameaningfuldistinctioninthecontextofEVadoption.
577.82percentlower-incomeand72.84percenthigher-incomerespondentsanswered“veryimportant”or“extremelyimportant”tothisquestion,respectively.
6Thedistributionsofthestatedimportanceoffederaltaxincentivesarehighlyanalogousbetweenthetwogroups.Thedifferencemightbebecausefederaltaxsubsidiesaretaxcreditsandcannotrollovertothenextyear.Therefore,PEVpurchaserswithlowerincomemaynotqualifyforthefullamountoffederaltaxsubsidyduetotheirinadequatetaxableincome.
7IPF,alsocommonlyknownas“biproportionalfitting”ineconomicsandstatistics,isaprevailingap-proachtoadjustsampleweightstomoreaccuratelyreflectthedistributionofthetruepopulation.
10
Table2:DescriptiveStatisticsforCategoricalImpactsofIncentives
Characteristic
Fullsample
FrequencyPercentage
Lower-income
FrequencyPercentage
Higher-income
FrequencyPercentage
WouldyouhavepurchasedorleasedyourPEVwithouttheCVRPrebate?
YesNo
31,642
33,317
48.7151.29
6,952
8,813
44.1055.90
24,690
24,504
50.1949.81
Howimportantwasthestaterebate(CVRP)inmakingitpossibletoacquireaPEV?
NotatallimportantSlightlyimportant
ModeratelyimportantVeryimportant
Extremelyimportant
1,881
4,768
10,089
17,729
30,017
2.927.3915.6527.4946.55
444
953
2,061
4,024
8,108
2.856.1113.2225.8152.01
1,437
3,815
8,028
13,705
21,909
2.947.8016.4228.0344.81
HowimportantwerefederaltaxincentivesinmakingitpossibletoacquireaPEV?
NotatallimportantSlightlyimportant
ModeratelyimportantVeryimportant
Extremelyimportant
2,636
4,074
8,693
16,085
31,113
4.216.5113.8925.6949.70
665
969
2,021
3,737
7,676
4.416.4313.4124.8050.94
1,971
3,105
6,672
12,348
23,437
4.156.5314.0425
温馨提示
- 1. 本站所有资源如无特殊说明,都需要本地电脑安装OFFICE2007和PDF阅读器。图纸软件为CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.压缩文件请下载最新的WinRAR软件解压。
- 2. 本站的文档不包含任何第三方提供的附件图纸等,如果需要附件,请联系上传者。文件的所有权益归上传用户所有。
- 3. 本站RAR压缩包中若带图纸,网页内容里面会有图纸预览,若没有图纸预览就没有图纸。
- 4. 未经权益所有人同意不得将文件中的内容挪作商业或盈利用途。
- 5. 人人文库网仅提供信息存储空间,仅对用户上传内容的表现方式做保护处理,对用户上传分享的文档内容本身不做任何修改或编辑,并不能对任何下载内容负责。
- 6. 下载文件中如有侵权或不适当内容,请与我们联系,我们立即纠正。
- 7. 本站不保证下载资源的准确性、安全性和完整性, 同时也不承担用户因使用这些下载资源对自己和他人造成任何形式的伤害或损失。
最新文档
- 2024合同范本,科研项目合作协议
- 民间借贷借款合同
- 登高架设专项测试题附答案
- 情绪管理在幼儿发展中的重要性计划
- 托管保管委托合同三篇
- 2024年秋季学期新冀教版三年级上册英语课件 U1L1
- 信息技术风险管理培训
- 互联网体育项目合作开发合同
- 河南省许昌市襄城县市级名校2024届中考数学最后冲刺模拟试卷含解析
- 茶叶购销简单合同范本2024年
- 超音波操作规程
- 星三角降压启动
- 体育与健康六年级上期教案
- 【教材解读】语篇研读-Life on a space station
- Spring技术内幕:深入解析Spring架构与设计原理
- 公文流转单(标准模版)
- YY/T 1551.2-2017输液、输血器具用空气过滤器第2部分:液体细菌截留试验方法
- 认识椭圆形课件
- GB/T 19115.1-2018风光互补发电系统第1部分:技术条件
- FZ/T 73001-2016袜子
- 疏浚工程施工方案
评论
0/150
提交评论