California PHEV Owners Return to Gas Power

Jason R. Sakurai
by Jason R. Sakurai

Electric vehicles are one way to carbon neutrality. Yet 20 percent of California PHEV owners have gone back to gas-powered vehicles.

Published in Nature Energy on April 26th by the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, the study found that PHEV buyers in California were abandoning the technology at a rate of 20 percent, as were 18 percent of battery electric vehicle (BEV) owners.

According to the researchers, dissatisfaction with charging convenience, and not having level two, 240-volt charging at home, were the primary reasons.

The National Center for Sustainable Transportation (NCST) funded the analysis. The US Department of Transportation supported the University Transportation Centers program. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) paid for the questionnaire portion. They are one and the same agency that sniffs tailpipes for excess emissions.

Researchers Scott Hardman and Gil Tal had a premise: In order for EVs to be successful, it meant buyers needed to repurchase EVs. Abandoning the technology would prevent EVs from reaching 100 percent market share. They methodically surveyed California households who had purchased PEVs between 2012=2018. EVs’ success relied on adopters continuing to purchase EVs. 18 percent of EV owners and 20 percent of PHEVs were dissatisfied enough to return to gas-powered vehicles.

As noted by cnet.com, the problem centers around at-home charging. Level 2, 240-volt charging, or a lack thereof, is what led to discontent. Without the ability to recharge your EV at home, all the benefits of EV ownership go out the window. The lack of fast public chargers is a problem. Chargers that aren’t fast enough in comparison to refueling your car also diminished the EV experience.

Half the owners who bought another EV had Level 2 charging access, yet 30 percent who had access to Level 2 charging still decided against buying another EV. Their conclusion? It was pretty much even whether California PHEV owners decided to buy another EV or not. As the technology improves and charging installation is bundled with the purchase of an EV, it should help the green movement grow.

[Image: Mercedes-Benz]

Jason R. Sakurai
Jason R. Sakurai

With a father who owned a dealership, I literally grew up in the business. After college, I worked for GM, Nissan and Mazda, writing articles for automotive enthusiast magazines as a side gig. I discovered you could make a living selling ad space at Four Wheeler magazine, before I moved on to selling TV for the National Hot Rod Association. After that, I started Roadhouse, a marketing, advertising and PR firm dedicated to the automotive, outdoor/apparel, and entertainment industries. Through the years, I continued writing, shooting, and editing. It keep things interesting.

More by Jason R. Sakurai

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 43 comments
  • PandaBear PandaBear on May 06, 2021

    I bought one just to get on the carpool lane for free, and now that deal is over I am no longer going to buy an EV / plug in. If the price is right I might consider in the future but at the moment I like my gas car better.

  • FormerFF FormerFF on May 06, 2021

    I have a PHEV, and my next car is going to be a gasser, because I want to do some track driving. But, I'm certainly an edge case. I may keep the PHEV to use as an additional car, because it's been such a good car and I won't get that much money for it. If I didn't want to drive on the track, I'm not sure what I'd get. EVing around town is so much nicer than driving a gasoline powered car, it would be hard to give that up, but I don't see an EV that I'd really like. Since what I have has been so reliable and cheap to run, I'd probably just keep it for a few years and see if something else I really liked came along.

  • 3-On-The-Tree Another observation during my time as a firefighter EMT was that seatbelts and helmets do save lives and reduce injury. And its always the other person getting hurt.
  • 3-On-The-Tree Jeff, Matt Posky, When my bike came out in 1999 it was the fastest production motorcycle in the world, 150 HP 197 top speed, 9.57 quarter mile Hayabusa peregrine falcon etc. This led to controversy and calls for high-speed motorcycles to be banned in order to avoid increasingly fast bikes from driving on public roads. This led to a mutual decision nicknamed the “ gentleman’s agreement” to limit bikes to 186mph, ending the production bike speed contest for all bikes 2000 and upward. Honestly once your over a buck 20 it’s all a blur. Most super cars can do over or close to 200mpg, I know at least on paper my 09 C6 corvette LS3 tops out at 190mph.
  • 3-On-The-Tree In my life before the military I was a firefighter EMT and for the majority of the car accidents that we responded to ALCOHOL and drugs was the main factor. All the suggested limitations from everyone above don’t matter if there is a drunken/high fool behind the wheel. Again personal responsibility.
  • Wjtinfwb NONE. Vehicle tech is not the issue. What is the issue is we give a drivers license to any moron who can fog a mirror. Then don't even enforce that requirement or the requirement to have auto insurance is you have a car. The only tech I could get behind is to override the lighting controls so that headlights and taillights automatically come on at dusk and in sync with wipers. I see way too many cars after dark without headlights, likely due to the automatic control being overridden and turned to "Off". The current trend of digital or electro-luminescent dashboards exacerbates this as the dash is illuminated, fooling a driver into thinking the headlights are on.
  • Kjhkjlhkjhkljh kljhjkhjklhkjh given the increasing number of useless human scumbags who use their phones while driving (when it is not LIFE AND DEATH EMERGENCY) there has to be a trade off.It is either this, or make phone use during driving a moving violation that can suspend a license.
Next