The current interim report focuses on near-term options, and specifically addresses infrastructure needs for electric vehicles; barriers to deploying the infrastructure; and possible roles of the federal government in overcoming the barriers. It also begins an initial discussion of the pros and cons of the possible roles.

The interim report does not address the committee’s full statement of task and does not offer any recommendations. The committee will continue to gather and review information and conduct analyses through late spring 2014 and will issue its final comprehensive report in late summer 2014.

The interim report considers PEV manufacturers, dealers and customers; the charging infrastructure; and the electric grid. Findings and possible Federal roles for overcoming the barriers include:

Manufacturers, dealers and customers. The committee focused primarily on individuals and households because they make up the largest segment of potential buyers and because there might be more obstacles to their adoption of PEVs. It also considered barriers that automobile manufacturers and dealerships face in promoting the adoption of PEVs. Findings include:

• Most potential PEV customers have little knowledge of PEVs and almost no experience with them. Lack of familiarity with the vehicles and their operation and maintenance creates a substantial barrier to widespread PEV deployment.

  Possible Federal roles include the production of public-service announcements that showcase current PEV owners, describe the benefits of PEV ownership, and illustrate how a PEV meets various transportation needs; the creation of marketing campaigns to help customers to understand incentives and that target audiences that have transportation needs that might fit PEVs; and the provision of ride-and-drive activities or demonstrations at high-visibility locations to familiarize the public with PEVs.

• PEVs have higher purchase prices than comparable conventional vehicles. Research indicates that people heavily discount the value of future gains; sticker-price premiums typically will be difficult to overcome with fuel-savings promises alone.

  Possible Federal roles include continuing to provide economic incentives—such as continuing or extending tax credits or rebates—to encourage customers to buy PEVs; increasing the tax on gasoline by increasing taxes on motor fuels or by instituting a broad-based carbon tax; and using the convening function to coordinate state and local incentives that would encourage PEV ownership and use, such as access to carpool lanes, parking benefits, and reduced vehicle registration or licensing fees. Some research has shown that purchase rebates can be more effective than income-tax credits, the committee noted.

• Most BEVs have small driving ranges, and this could be a substantial barrier to their widespread adoption. However, commuting by electricity stored in vehicles should be feasible on a large scale in the United States given that some BEVs can routinely travel 40–80 miles (64-129 km) on one charge and that nearly 70% of average daily travel is less than 40 miles and more than 90% is less than 80 miles.

• Few data on customer perceptions, attitudes, and behavior regarding PEVs are publicly available. Although some studies have examined those topics, further research could help to determine how to structure effective programs and policies. Little research has been conducted to determine which government policies concerning PEVs are the most successful and why.

  Possible Federal roles include supporting research to obtain a better understanding of why potential customers would or would not purchase PEVs and how they have responded to various initiatives, programs, or incentives that are aimed at promoting widespread PEV adoption, including DOE’s Clean Cities programs; and revising or adapting programs as information on their effectiveness is collected.

• Few PEV model choices are offered to customers, and the variety offered does not meet the needs of all customers. However, sales of PEVs must increase to justify further investment by automobile manufacturers to diversify the products offered.

  A possible Federal role includes continuing to support research on and development of electric-drive technologies to improve their performance and reduce their costs; reduced costs would encourage purchase and indirectly encourage the use of electric-drive technology in a variety of models.

• Dealerships are independent franchises that are not owned or operated by the automobile manufacturers. Training and educating dealership personnel—salespersons, mechanics, financial specialists, and managers—entail substantial costs to a franchise. Given those costs, many dealerships do not appear to be fully prepared to explain PEVs and educate customers about them. As a result, there appears to be an information gap at the primary point of sales.

Charging infrastructure. Most electric charging infrastructure is (and is likely to remain) at residences where PEVs are available for charging for the longest time, the committee noted. Because PEVs are also parked at workplaces for substantial periods on each workday, workplace charging is a promising option if practical ways can be found to provide the needed infrastructure.

In addressing issues about charging-infrastructure needs, the committee assumed that the goal was to maximize the fraction of miles fueled by electricity for light-duty vehicles. Findings include:

• An overarching need for the deployment of all aspects of the PEV charging infrastructure is an understanding of the charging needs for PHEV and BEV drivers, how their needs might change in the future, and how they might change in response to various policy initiatives. Those needs are affected by a variety of factors, including the types of PEVs on the road, travel patterns of these vehicles, and the costs of charging at different locations.

  A possible Federal role is the continuation of efforts to collect, analyze, and disseminate data on vehicle charging, PEV sales, and policy effectiveness. The resulting information could help to address the extent to which various charging options meet residential, workplace, and publicly accessible charging needs. It could also improve understanding of what policies are most effective in maximizing the fraction of electric miles traveled. The analysis could include research to understand the effects of installing charging infrastructure on economic and related activity.

• There are no serious technical barriers to the installation of charging infrastructure at most residences that have access to garages or carports. Charging at such residences would meet the needs of all foreseeable PHEVs and of most BEVs that have ranges of up to 100 miles (161 km). The main barriers to the widespread adoption of residential charging of PEVs appear to be the cost and the effort of installing the wiring and charging apparatus.

  A possible Federal role is the continuation of tax incentives and subsidies for installing charging infrastructure and encourage state and local governments to streamline permitting and to adopt building codes that require new construction to be PEV-charging-enabled.

• Residential charging is problematic for residences that have access only to on-street parking, as might be the case for multifamily dwellings in high-density locations. Residential charging also might be problematic for those who rent their homes and therefore would not have authority to make structural changes to the property that would be required for installing a charger and possible electricity upgrades. An owner of a rental property could be reluctant to invest in charging equipment that might not be used by the next tenant. Thus, for those drivers who lack access to residential charging, the barriers might be partially overcome by having access to workplace or public-charging infrastructure.

  A possible Federal role is to encourage or to subsidize local governments to establish dedicated parking spots or to install charging infrastructure that is publicly accessible.

• Increasing the availability of workplace charging infrastructure offers a potentially important opportunity to encourage the adoption of PEVs. Important unknowns regarding workplace charging infrastructure are the potential effects and needs if and when much larger battery capacity becomes affordable; this might be particularly important in less densely populated areas. Another important unknown is how the use of workplace charging might depend on whether employees have to pay for it.

  Possible Federal roles include offering a financial incentive, such as an accelerated depreciation schedule, so that businesses are more willing to offer workplace charging; exempting electricity provided by workplace charging infrastructure from being treated as a taxable benefit; working with utilities and their regulators to minimize special charges that might be incurred because of workplace charging; and supporting research on demonstration installations.

• Publicly accessible charging infrastructure provides several important benefits, such as extending the electric range of all PEVs, relieving range concerns of BEV owners, and providing increased visibility of both PHEVs and BEVs. However, the high cost of installing public charging stations and the little revenue obtained from providing electricity present challenges for developing sustainable business models. In the near term, deploying publicly accessible charging infrastructure might require public-private partnerships or other forms of continued government support.

  Possible Federal roles include providing incentives to demonstration projects that propose credible business models that could eventually be sustained when subsidies are no longer available; providing increased clarity and simplicity regarding regulatory compliance with such laws as the Americans with Disabilities Act; and incentivizing landowners, retailers, and public agencies to offer host sites for installing charging infrastructure in key highway corridors.

• It is critical to standardize the many components of the charging infrastructure. Multiple plugs for fast chargers and the lack of standardization of payment methods for various charging networks are particularly problematic.

  A possible Federal role is to use the convening function to encourage standardization of charging plugs and payment methods. The committee recognizes that such standardization might restrain innovation, but increasing compatibility increases coverage of the whole charging infrastructure.

The electric grid. Mass deployment of PEVs would create a substantial new load for the electric grid, and how the power sector handles such a new load might affect the deployment of PEVs. Findings in this area include:

• The existing electric infrastructure does not present a barrier to the expansion of PEV technology in the United States given the projected growth of PEV use in the next decade. With the exception of a scenario in which PEVs are concentrated within an overburdened branch of the distribution system, no major physical barriers have been identified.

• As PEVs account for a more significant share of total electricity consumption, the committee sees no barriers to provision of generation and distribution capacity to accommodate the growth through the normal processes of infrastructure expansion and upgrades in the electric-utility industry.

• The current time-based rate structures (time-of-use or real-time pricing) available to most commercial and industrial customers and some residential customers provide an incentive to PEV owners and utilities in that they encourage charging at times when lower-cost generating capacity is available.

• Regulating third-party entities (non-owner, non-utility charging-service providers) as utilities could increase operating costs and decrease business-model flexibility. Furthermore, the role and scope allowed to utilities (as opposed to third- party entities) in providing charging equipment are unclear.

• The lack of access to or price premium for clean electricity could be a barrier to PEV adoption by vehicle owners who are seeking to mitigate their environmental impact. Overall, however, there is already a net benefit of using PEVs compared with using vehicles that have traditional internal-combustion engines given the existing mix of electricity-generation sources. The benefit can be increased by a continued transition to generation sources that have lower life-cycle emissions.

The disadvantages of the possible [Federal] activities are that they require resources—time, money, or staff. The strain on federal resources emphasizes the need to understand which policies are most effective, what does not work, and the best ways to revise or restructure policies or programs to make them more effective. The committee’s final report will explore those and other options further and will consider other barriers to PEV deployment, including technologic and economic ones.

—Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment: Interim Report

Resources

• National Research Council. Overcoming Barriers to Electric-Vehicle Deployment: Interim Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2013