National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Innovation for Our Energy Future 

A national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

NREL is operated by Midwest Research Institute ● Battelle Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

Consumer Views on 

Transportation and Energy 

(Third Edition)

M. Kubik 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-620-39047 

January 2006 
Consumer Views on 

Transportation and Energy 

(Third Edition) 

M. Kubik 

Prepared under Task No. ASA5.1315 

Technical Report 

NREL/TP-620-39047 

January 2006 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Boulevard, Golden, Colorado 80401-3393 

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov 

Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

by Midwest Research Institute • Battelle 

Contract No. DE-AC36-99-GO10337
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any 

warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not 

infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by 

trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof. 

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy 

and its contractors, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Scientific and Technical Information 

P.O. Box 62 

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 

phone: 865.576.8401 

fax: 865.576.5728 

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from: 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

phone: 800.553.6847 

fax: 703.605.6900 

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................... iv 

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 

2. ENERGY, OIL, AND POLICY............................................................................................. 2 

3. ALTERNATIVE FUELS..................................................................................................... 12 

4. CONVENTIONAL, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT, AND ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY 

VEHICLES .......................................................................................................................... 17 

APPENDIX A............................................................................................................................... 28 

iii
LIST OF TABLES 

Table Page 

2.1.1 Seriousness of Energy Situation (selected years, 1977-2005)................................................2 

2.1.2 Likelihood to Face an Energy Shortage (selected years, 1978-2005) ....................................2 

2.2.1 Gas Price Increase – Effect on Lifestyle (June 2004).............................................................3 

2.2.2 Gas Price Increase – Effect on Finances (selected years, 2000-2005) ...................................3 

2.2.3 Gas Price Increase – Response (September 2005)..................................................................4 

2.2.4 Fuel Efficiency of New Vehicle (September 2005)................................................................4 

2.2.5 Reduction in Miles Traveled (September 2005).....................................................................5 

2.2.6 Gas Price Increase – Perceived Cause (May 2004) ................................................................5 

2.2.7 Gas Prices Near $2.50 a Gallon and Amount Willing to Pay for New Vehicle 

(May 2005)..............................................................................................................................6 

2.2.8 Gas Prices at $1.50 a Gallon and Amount Willing to Pay for New Vehicle 

(May 2005)..............................................................................................................................6 

2.2.9 Gas Prices and Willingness to Pay $2,000 More for New Vehicle (May 2005) ....................7 

2.3.1 Energy Production Priorities – Production vs. Conservation (2001-05) ................................8 

2.3.2 Energy Production Priorities – Environment vs. Supply (2001-05).......................................8 

2.3.3 Priorities for the Country (selected years, 2001-05)...............................................................9 

2.3.4 Relaxing Environmental Standards (April 2004) .................................................................10 

2.3.5 View of Strictness of Environmental Regulations (May 2005)............................................10 

2.3.6 Quality of the Environment at Various Levels (May 2005) .................................................10 

2.3.7 Environmental Proposals (March 2003) ...............................................................................11 

2.3.8 Ideas for Reducing Dependence on Imported Oil (May 2005).............................................11 

3.1.1 Factors Considered “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” in Influencing Decisions 

to Try a New Fuel Technology (2003) .................................................................................12 

3.1.2 Public Perception of Best Fuel and Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004)..............................................................12 

3.1.3 Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .............................................................................13 

3.1.4 Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline Is 

No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .................................................................................14 

3.1.5 Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .............................................................................14 

3.1.6 Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004)..............................................................15 

3.1.7 Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .............................................................................15 

3.1.8 Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When Gasoline 

Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) .............................................................................16 

4.1.1 Trends in Vehicle-Attribute Preference (selected years, 1980-2005)...................................17 

4.1.2 Issue Is a Major Reason for Those NOT Considering the Purchase of an SUV (2003).......17 

4.2.1 Number of Years Public is Willing to Accept for Payback of Higher Fuel-Economy 

Vehicle (2002) ......................................................................................................................18 

4.2.2 Additional Amount the Public is Willing to Pay for a Vehicle with a 10 Percent Increase 

in Fuel Economy (2001) .......................................................................................................18

iv
4.2.3 Public Preference Toward Purchasing a More Fuel-Efficient Engine with Different FuelAvailability Options (2000) .................................................................................................19

4.3.1 Names of Advanced Hybrid-Electric Vehicles Known by the Public (selected years, 

2000-04)................................................................................................................................20 

4.3.2 Public’s Attitudes Toward Hybrid-Electric SUVs (2003)....................................................20 

4.3.3 Level of Consideration for Gas-Electric Hybrid (August 2005) ..........................................21 

4.3.4 Importance of Gas Mileage in Next Vehicle (August 2005) ................................................21 

4.3.5 Alternative Fuels to Replace Gasoline and Diesel Fuel in Vehicles (September 2005).......22 

4.3.6 Public’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for a Clean Diesel Engine (2002)..........................23 

4.3.7 Purchase Preference Between Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles by Vehicle Type 

(2001 and 2005) ....................................................................................................................23 

4.3.8 Reasons for Rejecting a Diesel Option (2001 and 2005)......................................................24 

4.3.9 Reasons for Choosing a Diesel Option (2001 and 2005)......................................................25 

4.3.10 Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (2004 and 2005) ...................................................................26 

4.3.11 Vehicle-Purchase Preferences – Hybrid-electric vs. Diesel (2004)......................................26 

4.3.12 Priority on Vehicle Attributes (2004) ...................................................................................27 

4.3.13 Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (May 2005)...........................................................................27 

v
1

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

This report was written to provide the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) with an idea of how the American public views 

various transportation, energy, and environmental issues. 

The data presented in the third edition of this report have been drawn from multiple sources: 

surveys conducted by the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC)1

 for the National Renewable 

Energy Laboratory (NREL) that are commissioned and funded by EERE, Gallup polls, news 

organization polls, surveys conducted by independent groups and academic institutions, and 

other sources. Most of the surveys are telephone interviews conducted with randomly selected 

national samples of adults 18 and older (some were done via the Internet). The surveys use 

national samples, and the sample size is noted, wherever it is available. The surveys were 

selected based on their relevance to this overall topic. 

The Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy report consists of four sections, including 

the introduction (Section 1). Section 2 examines public concern about U.S. dependence on 

imported oil and public assessment of the energy situation in the United States. Section 2 also 

examines public beliefs about actions to address energy problems, as well as actual and 

perceived effects of gasoline prices on individuals and households. 

Section 3 analyzes what Americans think about alternative fuels such as electricity, ethanol, 

hydrogen, and other fuel types. Section 4 focuses on conventional and advanced-technology 

vehicles. In this report, advanced-technology vehicles include hybrid-electric and diesel vehicles. 

Section 4 also analyzes owners’ decisions about purchasing more fuel-efficient vehicles and 

advanced-technology vehicles. 

In this edition of Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy, ORC and Gallup poll results 

for 2002-2005 have been included. ORC surveys were conducted twice a year in 2002, 2004 and 

2005 and once in 2003.2

 The new Gallup polls were conducted throughout 2005. ORC and 

Gallup asked some of the same energy and environment questions during the past several years. 

The latest results have been added to the prior ones to show the most current opinions and trends 

during the past several years. 

The report also features new questions from both ORC and Gallup. These 2005 surveys 

examined “hot” topics such as gas-price increases, environmental issues, and vehicle-purchase 

preferences. 

1

 Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) is a research and consulting firm, founded in 1938, that conducts 

commercial marketing research programs worldwide, in both the private and public sectors. 2 March 2002, November 2002, March 2003, May and August 2004, May and September 2005. 
2

2. ENERGY, OIL, AND POLICY 

Public opinion polls reveal that the U.S. public perceives the country’s energy situation as a 

serious issue (Table 2.1.1). This section examines the public’s assessment of the energy 

situation, actual and perceived effects of gasoline prices on driving, and public beliefs about 

actions to address energy problems. 

2.1 PUBLIC ASSESSMENT OF THE ENERGY SITUATION 

Q2.1.1: How serious would you say the energy situation is in the United States – very serious, 

fairly serious, or not at all serious? 

Table 2.1.1. Seriousness of Energy Situation (selected years, 1977-2005) 

Date Very serious

(%) 

Fairly 

serious (%) 

Not at all 

serious (%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

March 2005 31 56 10 3 

March 2004 29 57 12 2 

March 2003 28 59 11 2 

March 2002 22 63 12 3 

March 2001 31 59 9 1 

Feb. 1991 40 44 14 2 

Aug. 1990 28 45 23 4 

April 1979 44 36 16 4 

March 1978 41 39 15 5 

April 1977 44 40 11 5 

 Source: Gallup (selected years, 1977-2005), N=496 

Q2.1.2: Do you think that the United States is or is not likely to face a critical energy shortage 

during the next five years? 

Table 2.1.2. Likelihood to Face an Energy Shortage (selected years, 1978-2005) 

Date Yes, is 

(%) 

No, is not 

(%) 

Already 

facing one 

(%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

March 2005 52 45 * 3 

March 2004 49 47 1 3 

March 2003 56 40 1 3 

March 2002 48 49 1 2 

March 2001 60 36 1 3 

November 1978 45 41 4 10 

 Source: Gallup (selected years, 1977-2005), N=496 
3

2.2 ACTUAL AND PERCEIVED EFFECTS OF GASOLINE PRICES ON DRIVING 

Among those who responded to questions related to this section, it was clear that increases in gas 

prices affect driving habits and lifestyle traits. This is consistent with data showing that when 

gasoline prices are lower, people tend to use their vehicles more; and conversely, when gasoline 

prices increase, driving declines (Table 2.2.1). 

Q2.2.1: As a result of the recent rise in gas prices, would you say you have – or have not – 

done each of the following? 

Table 2.2.1. Gas Price Increase – Effect on Lifestyle (June 2004) 

Lifestyle trait Yes, have 

(%) 

No, have not 

(%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

Made more of an effort to find the gas station 

with the cheapest gas in your area 69 30 1 

Seriously considered getting a more fuelefficient car the next time you buy a vehicle 53 46 1 

Cut back significantly on how much you drive 45 54 1 

Cut back significantly on your household 

spending because of the higher gas prices 34 66 * 

Altered your summer vacation plans 29 70 1 

Source: Gallup (June 3-6, 2004), N=465 

Q2.2.2: Have recent price increases in gasoline caused any financial hardship for you or your 

household? 

Table 2.2.2. Gas Price Increase – Effect on Finances (selected years, 2000-2005) 

Timeframe Yes, caused 

hardship 

(%) 

No, has not 

caused 

hardship 

(%) 

No opinion 

(%) 

Aug. 28-30, 2005 69 31 0 

April 1-2, 2005 42 58 0 

May 21-23, 2004 47 52 1 

Feb. 17-19, 2003 35 65 0 

May 7-9, 2001 47 53 0 

May 23-24, 2000 36 64 0 

 Source: Gallup (selected years, 2000-05), N=465 
4

Q2.2.3: What has been your or your family’s primary response with regard to your vehicle or 

vehicle travel and the currently high gasoline prices? Anything else? (unaided) 

Table 2.2.3. Gas Price Increase – Response (September 2005) 

Response Total 

(%) 

Small 

car (%) 

Large 

car (%) 

Minivan 

(%) 

Pickup/

van (%) 

SUV 

(%) 

Drive less (travel less, 

consolidate trips, carpool, walk 

more, take bus, ride bike more) 44 54 42 53 42 33 

No effect (travel just as often) 16 12 24 1 22 21 

Gas prices are ridiculous 

(outrageous – too high) 13 9 13 19 10 12 

Don’t like it (unhappy, angry) 8 7 8 10 10 7 

Just pay the price (necessity) 5 3 8 8 6 6 

Use most efficient vehicle I own 3 2 1 2 2 6 

Prices are result of gouging 2 3 2 5 4 1 

Changed vehicle 2 3 3 1 1 2 

Don’t own car/don’t drive 2 1 1 0 2 1 

Other 9 9 9 8 7 11 

Don’t know 6 3 3 10 4 7 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

For information on other demographic breakdowns, see Appendix A 

Q2.2.4: If these high gasoline prices continued for the next several years, with respect to 

purchasing a new vehicle, how much more efficient would you want the vehicle you 

purchase to be? Would you say....... (aided question) 

Table 2.2.4. Fuel Efficiency of New Vehicle (September 2005) 

Efficiency Total 

(%) 

Small 

car (%) 

Large 

car (%) 

Minivan 

(%) 

Pickup/ 

van (%) 

SUV 

(%) 

25% or less 20 17 29 17 24 28 

 0 to 15% more efficient 9 7 12 11 12 14 

 16 to 25% more efficient 11 10 17 7 12 15 

26% or more 66 81 69 78 70 68 

 26 to 49% more efficient 12 16 10 22 12 15 

 50% or greater increase 54 65 59 56 58 53 

Do not plan to buy new vehicle 11 2 1 0 2 3 

Don’t know/don’t drive 2 * 1 5 5 1 

Mean (% more efficient) 43 45 41 43 42 40 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042 

For information on other demographic breakdowns, see Appendix A 
5

Q2.2.5: If these high gasoline prices continued for the next several years, with respect to 

driving less, would you say you would reduce the miles you travel by....... (aided 

question) 

Table 2.2.5. Reduction in Miles Traveled (September 2005) 

Reduction in miles Total 

(%) 

Small 

car (%) 

Large 

car (%) 

Minivan 

(%) 

Pickup/ 

van (%) 

SUV 

(%) 

25 % or less 51 55 54 59 53 62 

 Less than 5% 16 15 13 24 17 26 

 5 to 15% 16 17 18 15 18 19 

 16 to 25% 19 23 22 20 18 17 

26% or more 31 35 36 29 26 22 

 26 to 49% 9 8 13 7 10 10 

 50% or more 23 26 22 22 16 12 

None 12 8 9 12 17 15 

Don’t know/don’t drive 5 3 2 0 5 2 

Mean (% reduction in miles) 23 25 24 21 20 17 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042 

For information on other demographic breakdowns, see Appendix A 

Q2.2.6: Just your opinion, why would you say the price of gasoline has been increasing so 

much in recent months? (open-ended question) 

Table 2.2.6. Gas Price Increase – Perceived Cause (May 2004) 

Price factor Percent 

Big business/oil companies/price gouging/refineries want more profit 22 

The war in Iraq 19 

OPEC/Saudi Arabia manipulating supply 9 

Supply and demand 8 

Government/politics 7 

President Bush 5 

Lack of U.S. refining capability/lack of supply/drilling 4 

Gas shortage/lack of production 4 

Unrest in the Middle East 4 

Economy/inflation 2 

Summer vacation time/prices always go up around this time 2 

Foreign policy 1 

Other 6 

No opinion 15 

Source: Gallup (May 21-23, 2004), N=496 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 
6

Q2.2.7: Assuming that prices for regular gasoline remain near $2.50 per gallon, for your next 

new vehicle purchase, would you ............. (aided question) 

Table 2.2.7. Gas Prices Near $2.50 a Gallon and Amount Willing to Pay for New Vehicle 

(May 2005) 

Type of Vehicle Percent 

Pay an additional $2,500 to buy a hybrid version of 

your vehicle that reduced your gasoline use by 

30% 37 

Pay an additional $4,000 to buy a plug-in hybrid 

version of your vehicle that could reduce your 

gasoline use by 45% if you traveled about 20 miles 

per day on its battery only 14 

Neither 44 

Don’t know 4 

Total 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005a), N = 1,012 

Q2.2.8: Assuming that prices for regular gasoline decline to and remain at about $1.50 per 

gallon, for your next new vehicle purchase, would you ............. (aided question) 

Table 2.2.8. Gas Prices at $1.50 a Gallon and Amount Willing to Pay for New Vehicle 

(May 2005) 

Type of Vehicle Percent 

Pay an additional $2,500 to buy a hybrid version of 

your vehicle that reduced your gasoline use by 

30% 34 

Pay an additional $4,000 to buy a plug-in hybrid 

version of your vehicle that could reduce your 

gasoline use by 45% if you traveled about 20 miles 

per day on its battery only 10 

Neither 51 

Don’t know 5 

Total 100 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005a), N = 1,012 
7

Q2.2.9: How high would gasoline prices need to be before you would be willing to pay $2,000 

more for a vehicle that reduced your gasoline use by a third? Would you say ........... (aided 

question) 

Table 2.2.9. Gas Prices and Willingness to Pay $2,000 More for New Vehicle 

(May 2005) 

Price of gas (per gallon) Percent 

$1.50 12 

$2 8 

$2.50 15 

$3 or higher 34 

Never – wouldn’t pay $2,000 more to reduce your 

fuel use by a third 22 

Don’t know 8 

Total 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005a), N = 1,012 
8

2.3 PUBLIC BELIEFS ABOUT ACTIONS TO ADDRESS ENERGY PROBLEMS 

When it comes to opinions regarding priorities for the United States, protecting the environment 

and developing U.S. energy supplies are nearly equal in the minds of respondents. This trend was 

supported in surveys conducted by two different groups. (Tables 2.3.2 and 2.3.3). 

Q2.3.1: Which of the following approaches to solving the nation’s energy problems do you 

think the United States should follow right now: 

Emphasize production of more oil, gas, and coal supplies OR 

Emphasize more conservation by consumers of existing energy supplies. 

 

Table 2.3.1. Energy Production Priorities – Production vs. Conservation (2001-05) 

Date More 

production 

(%) 

More 

conservation 

(%) 

Both/equally 

(vol.) 

(%) 

Neither/other 

(vol.) 

(%) 

No 

opinion

(%) 

March 2005 28 61 7 2 2 

March 2004 31 59 6 2 2 

March 2003 29 60 7 2 2 

March 2002 30 60 6 2 2 

March 2001 33 56 8 1 2 

Source: Gallup (2001-05), N=496 

Q2.3.2: With which one of these statements about the environment and energy production do 

you most agree: 

 

Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of limiting 

the amount of energy supplies (such as oil, gas, and coal), which the United States 

produces OR 

 

Development of U.S. energy supplies (such as oil, gas, and coal) should be given 

priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent. 

Table 2.3.2. Energy Production Priorities – Environment vs. Supply (2001-05) 

Date Environment 

(%) 

Development 

of energy 

supplies (%) 

Both/equally 

(vol.) 

(%) 

Neither/other 

(vol.) 

(%) 

No 

opinion

(%) 

March 2005 52 39 4 2 3 

March 2004 48 44 3 1 4 

March 2003 49 40 5 2 4 

March 2002 52 40 3 2 3 

March 2001 52 36 6 2 4 

Source: Gallup (2001-05), N=496 
Which Should be Given Priority - Protection of the 

Environment or Development of U.S. Energy Supplies?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Environment Development of Energy

Supplies

Both/neither/no opinion

Percent of respondents

Source: Gallup (March 2004) 

Q2.3.3: Right now, which one of the following do you think should be a more important 

priority for this country: protecting the environment or developing new sources of 

energy? 

Table 2.3.3. Priorities for the Country (selected years, 2001-05) 

Date Environment

(%) 

Energy 

(%) 

Unsure 

(%) 

March 2005 42 49 9 

February 2002 45 48 7 

May 2001 42 49 9 

Source: Princeton Survey (March 2005), N=750 

9
10

Q2.3.4: Do you favor or oppose relaxing some environmental standards to increase oil and 

gas production in the United States? 

Table 2.3.4. Relaxing Environmental Standards (April 2004) 

Political affiliation Favor 

(%) 

Oppose 

(%) 

Unsure 

(%) 

All 46 43 11 

Democrats 34 54 12 

Republicans 63 26 11 

Independents 40 49 11 

Source: Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll (April 2004), N=900 

Q2.3.5: Do you think that in the past few years the environmental regulations in the United 

States have become more strict, have stayed about the same, or have gotten looser? 

(aided question) 

Table 2.3.5. View of Strictness of Environmental Regulations (May 2005) 

Environmental regulations Percent 

Much more strict 12 

Somewhat more strict 20 

Stayed about the same 26 

Somewhat looser 21 

Much looser 17 

Don’t know 5 

 Source: Yale Environment Survey (May 2005), N=1,002 

Q2.3.6: Right now, do you think the quality of the environment is getting better, staying about 

the same, or getting worse? (aided question) 

Table 2.3.6. Quality of the Environment at Various Levels (May 2005) 

Level Getting 

better 

(%) 

Staying 

about the 

same (%) 

Getting 

worse 

(%) 

Don’t 

know

(%) 

In your community 17 54 28 1 

In the United States 16 33 50 1 

Worldwide 10 22 63 5 

Source: Yale Environment Survey (May 2005), N=1,002 
11

Q2.3.7: I am going to read some specific environmental proposals. For each one, please say 

whether you generally favor or oppose it. 

Table 2.3.7. Environmental Proposals (March 2003) 

Proposal Favor (%) Oppose 

(%) 

No opinion

(%) 

Setting higher emissions and pollution 

standards for business and industry 80 19 1 

Imposing mandatory controls on carbon 

dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases 75 22 3 

More strongly enforcing federal environmental 

regulations 75 21 4 

Setting higher auto emissions standards for 

automobiles 73 24 * 

Expanding the use of nuclear energy 43 51 6 

Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge in Alaska for oil exploration 41 55 4 

Source: Gallup (March 2003), N=526 

Q2.3.8: Regarding some possible ways of reducing U.S. dependence on imported oil, do you 

think the following are a good idea or a bad idea? (aided question) 

Table 2.3.8. Ideas for Reducing Dependence on Imported Oil (May 2005) 

Idea (Top 10 Responses) Good (%) Bad (%) OK/Can’t 

Rate (%) 

Require the auto industry to make cars that get better 

gas mileage 93 6 1 

Require the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient 

cars 90 8 1 

Build more solar power facilities 90 6 3 

Build more wind-turbine farms to harness windgenerated electricity 87 6 6 

Increase funding for renewable energy research 86 9 4 

Provide tax credits to people who buy more energyefficient appliances such as air conditioning, clothes 

dryers, and water heaters 84 13 3 

Promote the development of hydrogen-powered cars 81 8 11 

Build more water-powered hydroelectric facilities 81 11 8 

Provide tax credits to people who buy cars that get 

good gas mileage 79 19 2 

Promote the use of hydrogen fuel cell technology 71 8 20 

Source: Yale Environment Survey (May 2005), N=1,002 
12

3. ALTERNATIVE FUELS 

A number of surveys researched the U.S. adult population knowledge and opinions about 

alternative types of fuel such as electricity, ethanol, and hydrogen. Poll questions asked between 

2000 and 2005 focused on knowledge and opinions about alternative fuels. Several of these 

survey questions demonstrate that opinions regarding safety and environmental attributes of 

these fuel sources have changed from 2000 to 2005. 

Table 3.1.1. Factors Considered “Extremely Important” or “Very Important” in Influencing 

Decisions to Try a New Fuel Technology (2003) 

Factor Percent 

How safe the fuel is for drivers and passengers 83 

The cost of the fuel 78 

How far you can drive before refueling 75 

The cost of the vehicle 72 

The convenience of refueling 67 

Environmental emissions 67 

Whether the fuel source is domestic instead of foreign 47 

How the new fuel system affects passenger and cargo space 47 

Whether or not the fuel can be recycled 45 

 Source: Harris poll for Millennium Cell and U.S. Borax Inc. (2003), N=1,006. 

Q3.1.2: Consider a future date when gasoline is no longer available. Which of the following 

do you think would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles: electricity, ethanol, 

or hydrogen? 

Table 3.1.2. Public Perception of Best Fuel and Worst Fuel for Use in Personal 

Vehicles When Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Fuel for Use in 

Personal Vehicles 

Best Fuel 

(%) 

Worst Fuel 

(%) 

2000 August 

2004 2000 August 2004 

Electricity 52 41 15 21 

Hydrogen 15 28 27 23 

Ethanol 21 19 28 28 

Don’t know 12 13 30 29 

Total 100 100 100 100 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=1,000; and ORC for NREL (2004b), 

Study No. 713359, N=1,000. 
13

Q3.1.3: Why did you say electricity would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles 

 when gasoline is no longer available? (unaided question) 

Table 3.1.3. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 

2000 August 

2004 

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, cleaner air, other 

environmental mentions) 29 23

Availability (abundant, common, renewable/inexhaustable, easy 

to produce/manufacture, not dependent on foreign oil) 22 23

Existing/developing technology (electric cars already being 

developed, technology already being used, many things powered 

by electricity) 17 13

Economical/affordable 11 7

Methods of generating (can be solar generated/powered, other 

related mentions) 7 3

Most familiar with it/not familiar with others 7 8

Safe 5 4

Other 5 9

Don’t know 6 15

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=522; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 
14

Q3.1.4: Why did you say ethanol would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

 gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.4. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 

2000 August 

2004 

Readily available (common, abundant, renewable/inexhaustible, easy 

to produce/manufacture, can generate our own fuel, other mentions) 27 28

Methods of generating (made from corn/grain, other related mentions) 18 9

Economical/affordable 15 12

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related 

mentions) 15 15

Others not practical/performance concerns 10 6

Better for/helps farmers/ farming industry 8 14

Existing/developing technology 8 9

Best source (unspecified) 5 11

More similar to gasoline 5 6

Other 12 5

Don’t know 7 12

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=206; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

Q3.1.5: Why did you say hydrogen would be the best fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.5. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 

2000 August 

2004 

Availability (common, abundant, easy to produce/manufacture, 

renewable/inexhaustible, other related mentions) 37 36

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related mentions) 27 24

Economical/affordable 12 16

Others not practical/ performance concerns 11 6

Existing/developing technology (net) 7 6

More efficient 5 1

Safety concerns 5 1

Best source (unspecified) 3 2

Other 9 9

Don’t know 9 8

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=151; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 
15

Q3.1.6: Why did you say electricity would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

 gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.6. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 2000 August 

2004 

Too expensive 28 23 

Electric vehicles can’t hold charge for long/can’t travel long distances 20 9 

Environmental concerns (must burn coal/fossil fuels, pollution, other 

related mentions) 19 23 

Not enough electricity now 12 6 

Safety concerns 5 2 

Other 15 9 

Don’t know 10 13 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=150; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

Q3.1.7: Why did you say ethanol would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles when 

gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.7. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 

2000 August 

2004 

Environmental concerns (pollution, creates environmental 

problems, other related mentions) 38 30

Safety concerns (flammable/combustible, explosive, contains 

chemicals, other related mentions) 20 12

Too expensive 6 4

Lack of availability 4 4

Finite/exhaustible resource 3 2

Difficult to produce 3 3

Causes engine trouble 3 1

Other 13 7

Don’t know 20 19

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=281; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 
16

Q3.1.8: Why did you say hydrogen would be the worst fuel for use in personal vehicles 

when gasoline is no longer available? 

Table 3.1.8. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Fuel for Use in Personal Vehicles When 

Gasoline Is No Longer Available (2000 and 2004) 

Percent 

Reasons 

2000 August 

2004 

Safety concerns (explosive, flammable/combustible, unstable, think of 

bombs, other related mentions) 50 40

Pollution and environmental concerns 8 5

Not enough is known about it 4 *

Difficult to produce 4 4

Too expensive 3 1

Other 15 9

Don’t know 21 23

Source: ORC for NREL (2000b), Study No. 709489, N=274; and ORC for NREL (2004b), Study No. 

713359, N=1,000. 
17

4. CONVENTIONAL, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT, AND ADVANCEDTECHNOLOGY VEHICLES 

Section 4 focuses on vehicle owners and the decisions they make about their vehicles. It consists 

of three sections that encompass survey data on owners’ decisions about their conventional (i.e., 

gasoline) vehicles, as well as more fuel-efficient and advanced-technology vehicles. 

4.1 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ON CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES 

Q4.1.1: Which of the following attributes would be MOST important to you in your choice of 

your next vehicle? (closed-ended) 

Table 4.1.1. Trends in Vehicle-Attribute Preference (selected years, 1980-2005) 

J.D. Power (percent) ORC (percent) 

Attributes 1980 1981 1983 1985 1987 1996 1998 2000 2001 May

2004 

May 

2005 

Fuel economy 42 20 13 8 4 7 4 10 10 22 12

Dependability 31 40 38 41 44 34 36 32 29 26 33

Low price 14 21 30 29 31 11 5 11 8 10 6

Quality 4 7 11 12 8 19 20 21 22 19 20

Safety 9 12 9 10 14 29 34 24 29 23 26

Don’t know/ 

none of these 1 2 1 3

Total 100 100 100 100 101 100 100 100 99 100 100

Sources: For 1980s: J. D. Power (data based on new-car buyers). For 1996: ORC for 

NREL. For 1998: ORC for NREL (1998a), N = 1,000. For 2000: ORC for NREL (2000a), 

N = 941. For 2001: ORC for NREL (2001c), N = 989. For 2004: ORC for NREL (2004a), 

N = 949. For 2005: ORC for NREL (2005a), N = 1,012. 

In-market car buyers were asked about their views toward sport utility vehicles (SUVs). 

Table 4.1.2. Issue Is a Major Reason for Those NOT Considering the Purchase 

 of an SUV (2003) 

Issue January 

2003 

March 

2003 

Price of gas -- 50 

Not the kind of vehicle I want 51 45 

Rollover/safety concerns 30 34 

Impact on foreign oil dependence 28 31 

Impact on environment 25 26 

Too big for the road 23 23 

Source: Kelley Blue Book (2003), N=524 
18

4.2 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ABOUT MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES 

Q4.2.1: Suppose that the next vehicle you’ve decided to buy offers an option of better fuel 

economy, but at a higher price. The savings in fuel costs would pay back the higher 

price over time. How soon, in years, would the fuel savings have to pay back the 

additional cost to persuade you to buy the higher fuel-economy option? 

Table 4.2.1. Number of Years Public is Willing to Accept for Payback of 

Higher Fuel-Economy Vehicle (2002) 

Years Percent 

1 18

2 23

3 13

4 3

5 12

6 -

More than 6 3

Don’t Know 27

Total 100

Mean 2.9

 Source: ORC for NREL (2002b), N=1,000 

Q4.2.2: How much more would you be willing to pay for the vehicle that gets 10% better fuel 

economy than for the vehicle you currently drive? 

Table 4.2.2. Additional Amount the Public is Willing to Pay for a Vehicle 

with a 10 Percent Increase in Fuel Economy (2001) 

Dollar Amount Percent 

Less than $500 7

$500-$1,000 15

$1,001-$2,500 17

$2,501-$5,000 15

More than $5,000 5

Nothing more 18

Don’t know 23

Total 100

Mean1 (including none) $2,143 

Mean1 (excluding none) $2,799 

 Source: ORC for NREL (2001b), Study No. 710449, N=180 

1 In this report, calculation of means, medians, and standard deviations are based on raw numbers. “Don’t 

know” responses are not part of the calculations. 
19

Q4.2.3: Suppose you have decided to buy a new vehicle and have a choice of an optional engine 

 that requires a new fuel that costs the same as gasoline and is just as good as gasoline. 

Version A: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 10 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

Version B: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 5 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

 

Version C: The optional engine costs the same as the conventional one but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 3 stations. 

Which would you most likely buy? 

Table 4.2.3. Public Preference Toward Purchasing a More Fuel-Efficient Engine with 

Different Fuel-Availability Options (2000) 

Fuel-Availability Options 

Conventional 

Engine 

(%) 

Optional 

Engine 

(%) 

Don’t 

Know/Refused 

(%) 

A 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 10 

stations. 

66 30 4 

B 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 5 

stations. 

62 36 3 

C 

The optional engine costs the same as 

the conventional one, but gets 50% 

more miles per gallon. However, the 

fuel it requires is sold only at 1 in 3 

stations. 

43 53 4 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000d), Study No. 70920, N=111 
20

4.3 VEHICLE OWNERS’ DECISIONS ABOUT ADVANCED-TECHNOLOGY 

VEHICLES 

Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 

Q4.3.1: There are some vehicles in the U.S. market today that have hybrid-electric 

powertrains that combine an electric motor and a gasoline engine to achieve a higher 

fuel economy than similar-sized vehicles. Please name one of these hybrid vehicles, if 

you can. 

Table 4.3.1. Names of Advanced Hybrid-Electric Vehicles 

Known by the Public (selected years, 2000-04) 

Percent 

August 2000 November 2001 November 2002 May 2004 

Any vehicle 36 44 51 48 

Honda 15 24 24 17 

Toyota 4 11 10 9 

Ford NA NA NA 6 

Other 14 6 7 4 

Don’t Know 64 56 48 52 

Source: ORC for NREL (2000) N=953, (2001) N=999, (2002c) N=999, (2000a) N=1,000, (2004a) 

N=1,000 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

A 2003 survey of in-market consumers by Kelley Blue Book examined the influence of the 

media on attitudes toward SUVs. Although no hybrid-electric SUVs were available in the United 

States at the time of this survey (mid-2003), shoppers would think favorably of such an option 

and might be more likely to consider the purchase of an SUV. 

 

Table 4.3.2. Public’s Attitudes Toward Hybrid-Electric SUVs (2003) 

Percent 

SUV Considerers SUV 

Non-Considerers Total 

Jan 2003 Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Mar 2003 Jan 2003 Mar 2003 

More favorable 

toward SUVs 52 46 45 44 48 45 

Neutral 40 46 44 51 42 49 

Less favorable 

toward SUVs 8 7 11 5 10 6 

 Source: Kelley Blue Book (2003), N=524
21

Q4.3.3: Suppose you were going to buy a new vehicle. Would you seriously consider buying 

a car or SUV that is a gas-electric hybrid, or not? If the hybrid vehicle cost $3,000 

more than the standard model of the same vehicle would you still seriously consider 

buying it, or not? 

Table 4.3.3. Level of Consideration for Gas-Electric Hybrid 

(August 2005) 

Response Percent 

Yes, seriously consider 55

 Even if $3,000 more 45

 Not, if $3,000 more 9

No, would not 43

No opinion 2

 Source: Gallup (August 2005), N=1,007 

Q4.3.4: When you buy or lease your next vehicle, will the car’s gas mileage be a more 

important consideration for you that it has been in the past, or will it not be any more 

important to you? 

Table 4.3.4. Importance of Gas Mileage in Next Vehicle (August 2005) 

Response Percent 

More important 75

Not more important 22

Less important *

Don’t drive 1

No opinion 2

 Source: Gallup (August 2005), N=1,007 
22

Diesel Vehicles 

Q4.3.5: What fuels would you like to see replace gasoline and diesel fuel in the vehicles used 

in the United States? Anything else? (unaided question) 

Table 4.3.5. Alternative Fuels to Replace Gasoline and Diesel Fuel in Vehicles 

(September 2005) 

Response Total 

(%) 

Small car 

(%) 

Large 

car (%) 

Minivan 

(%) 

Pickup/ 

van (%) 

SUV 

(%) 

Electricity 14 18 18 15 13 9 

Hydrogen 14 21 16 15 15 11 

Ethanol 11 13 11 11 10 11 

Solar 7 6 10 11 10 7 

Water 7 6 8 11 3 8 

Hybrid fuel/cars 5 9 7 3 7 3 

Corn 5 4 6 8 4 4 

Vegetable oil 3 3 2 4 4 5 

Natural gas 3 2 4 1 3 3 

Alcohol 2 4 3 1 3 1 

Diesel 2 2 * 2 4 2 

Fuel cells (unspecified) 2 3 3 2 1 1 

Batteries 2 2 4 1 1 1 

Propane 1 2 1 2 4 0 

Something 

environmentally friendly 1 2 3 0 1 1 

Anything cheaper/less 

expensive 1 * 1 2 1 3 

Bio-diesel 1 1 * 0 3 * 

Cooking oil 1 2 * 0 1 0 

Nuclear 1 1 2 0 0 1 

Soy/soybeans 1 1 * 1 1 * 

Methanol 1 * 1 0 1 * 

Wind 1 * * 0 1 0 

Other 11 8 11 12 12 13 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response 
23

Q4.3.6: Would you consider buying a diesel engine version that got 40% better fuel economy 

and costs an additional $1,500? 

Table 4.3.6 Public’s Willingness to Pay a Premium for a Clean Diesel Engine (2002) 

Percent 

Premium Willing to Pay 

For Clean Diesel Total Current Diesel 

Owner 

Current Gas 

Owner 

$0 33 10 34

$1-$199 8 4 8

$200-$399 7 1 7

$400-$599 16 8 17

$600-$999 4 3 4

$1,000-$1,499 14 17 14

$1,500-$1,999 4 5 4

More than $2,000 14 51 12

 Source: J.D. Power and Associates (2002), N-not available 

Q4.3.7: Assume that a new vehicle you want to buy has two engine options that are equally 

clean, dependable, powerful, odorless, and smooth running. One uses gasoline and the 

other uses diesel fuel and gets 40% more miles per gallon but costs $2,000 more. 

Which engine option would you buy? 

Table 4.3.7. Purchase Preference Between Diesel and Gasoline Vehicles 

 by Vehicle Type (2001 and 2005) 

Vehicle Type 

Total 

Small Car Large 

Car Minivan SUV Pickup/ Van 

Vehicle 

Engine 

Option 

‘01 ‘05 ‘01 ‘05 ‘01 ‘05 ‘01 ‘05 ‘01 ‘05 ‘01 ‘05

Gasoline 71 40 75 40 81 40 71 28 62 52 65 30

Diesel 27 52 21 55 18 56 27 65 37 44 34 69

Don’t know 2 8 4 5 4 4 2 7 1 4 1 1

Source: For 2001: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=989; For 2005: ORC for NREL 

(2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042
If did not choose diesel, ask: 

Q4.3.8: Why did you reject the diesel option? (unaided question) 

Table 4.3.8. Reasons for Rejecting a Diesel Option (2001 and 2005) 

Reasons 2001 

(%) 

Sept. 2005 

(%) 

Environmental (pollutes the air, odor/smell/stink, too much noise, 

other related mentions) 39 12

Cost (expense, initial cost/$2,000 more, other related mentions ) 19 30

Lack of fuel availability 17 10

Don’t know enough/know nothing about it/never owned one 11 5

Engine problems (difficult to start in winter, other related mentions) 8 *

Just don’t like diesel/husband doesn’t like diesel 7 *

Prefer/used to/satisfied with gasoline 5 *

Other 4 9

Don’t know 4 *

Source: For 2001: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=723. For 2005: ORC for NREL 

(2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response. 

Reasons for Rejecting the Diesel Option 

(723 respondents in 2001 and 381 respondents in 2005)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Polluting, odor, noise Initial cost too high Lack of fuel availability

Percent of Respondents

2001 2005

24
25

If chose diesel, ask: 

Q4.3.9: Why did you choose the diesel option? (unaided question) 

Table 4.3.9. Reasons for Choosing a Diesel Option (2001 and 2005) 

Reasons 2001 (%) Sept. 2005 (%) 

Fuel economy (better gas mileage/fuel economy, 40% 

better mileage/miles per gallon) 46 42 

Cost (saves money/pays for itself over time, cheaper than 

gasoline, economical) 34 41 

Dependability (diesel engine lasts longer, more reliable) 12 9 

Environmental (burns cleaner, other related mentions) 10 7 

I have/drive vehicle with diesel engine 4 3 

More power/horsepower 3 3 

Other /don’t know 10 9 

Source: For 2001: ORC for NREL (2001c), Study No. 710288, N=266. For 2005: ORC for NREL 

(2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042 

Note: Percentages do not total 100, because each respondent could volunteer more than one response.
26

General Preferences

Q4.3.10: Which one of the following are you planning to purchase for your next household 

 vehicle? 

Table 4.3.10. Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (2004 and 2005) 

Type of Vehicle 2004 May 

2005 

September 

2005 

Large car, same size or larger than a Honda 

Accord, Chevy Malibu, or Toyota Camry 28 25 22 

SUV or sport utility vehicle 23 17 17 

Small car, smaller than a Honda Accord, Chevy 

Malibu, or Toyota Camry 20 24 33 

Pickup truck or large van 18 15 14 

Minivan 6 9 9 

Other/ don’t know 4 9 4 

Do not plan to purchase new household vehicle N/A N/A ** 

Total 99 99 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000. For May 2005: ORC for NREL (2005a), 

N = 1,012. For September 2005: ORC for NREL (2005b), Study No. 714388, N=1,042 

** Because “don’t plan to purchase new household vehicle” was not an optional response during the first 

two surveys, we have normalized the September 2005 results to reflect that difference. 

Q4.3.11: When you purchase your next household vehicle, how likely are you to buy each of 

the following? 

 

 Would you say you definitely will buy it, you would be very likely to buy it, you 

would be likely to buy it, you would be not likely to buy it or you definitely won’t 

buy it? 

Table 4.3.11. Vehicle-Purchase Preferences – Hybrid-electric vs. Diesel (2004) 

Percent 

Type of Vehicle Hybridelectric Diesel 

Definitely will buy 7 4 

Very likely to buy 8 4 

Likely to buy 27 14 

Not likely to buy 31 36 

Definitely won’t buy 20 38 

Don’t know 6 3 

Total 99 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000 
27

Q4.3.12: Suppose you were given an extra $1,000 that you must spend on acceleration, fuel 

economy and/or the ability to tow, when buying your next vehicle. How much would 

you spend on each attribute? You can spend all the money on one attribute or split it 

among two or three attributes. 

Table 4.3.12. Priority on Vehicle Attributes (2004) 

Attribute Dollars 

Fuel economy $609 

Acceleration $248 

Ability to tow $143 

Total $1,000 

Source: ORC for NREL (2004a), Study No. 713218, N=1,000 

Q4.3.13: Which one of the following are you planning to purchase for your next household 

 vehicle? 

Table 4.3.13. Vehicle-Purchase Preferences (May 2005) 

Type of Vehicle Percent 

A new vehicle in fewer than 3 years 24 

A new vehicle in 3 to 6 years 20 

A new vehicle in 7 or more years 7 

A used vehicle in fewer than 3 years 18 

A used vehicle in 3 to 6 years 14 

A used vehicle in 7 or more years 4 

Don’t drive 3 

Don’t know/do not plan to purchase household 

vehicle 9 

Total 99 

Source: ORC for NREL (2005a), N = 1,012. 
Appendix A 

ORC STUDY #714388, VEHICLE FUEL EFFICIENCY SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 

28
TABLE 2.2.3 (A) 

What has been your or your family's primary response with regard to your vehicle or vehicle travel and the currently higelse? - Unaided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Unweighted Total 1042 173 89 161 180 252 404 179 408 452 679 356 252 179 Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194 Drive Less (Net) 444 80 39 78 88 85 158 61 145 238 245 196 143 97  44% 46% 43% 48% 51%F 37% 42% 42% 41% 47% 42% 49%K 49% 50%  Travel less 179 30 21 31 34 35 65 23 57 98 100 78 59 37  18% 17% 23% 19% 20% 15% 17% 16% 16% 20% 17% 19% 20% 19%  Drive less 106 22 3 23 16 23 33 17 31 57 53 51 37 24  11% 13%C 4% 14%C 9% 10% 9% 12% 9% 11% 9% 13% 13% 12%  Only make necessary 78 13 9 12 21 12 31 11 29 37 50 27 16 16  trips/Don't drive unless 8% 8% 10% 7% 12%F 5% 8% 7% 8% 7% 9% 7% 6% 8%  have to  Consolidate trips/errands 38 7 3 6 3 14 14 7 11 20 21 18 12 11  4% 4% 3% 3% 2% 6%E 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 6%  Car pool 22 2 0 7 4 7 12 0 5 16 10 12 6 7  2% 1% 0 4% 2% 3% 3% 0 2% 3%H 2% 3% 2% 4%  Don't travel 18 4 3 1 3 2 7 2 6 10 8 9 6 2  2% 2% 4% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1%  Don't go anywhere 16 3 1 2 5 4 5 1 5 9 6 10 9 4  2% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 2%  Walk more 15 2 0 5 4 1 4 2 1 13 5 11 10 7  2% 1% 0 3%F 3% * 1% 1% * 3%I 1% 3%K 3% 4%  Conserving gas/ 12 2 0 3 4 0 1 2 4 6 9 3 3 1  Conservation 1% 1% 0 2% 2%F 0 * 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%  Take bus 10 3 1 1 2 1 4 1 5 4 8 2 1 2  1% 2% 1% 1% 1% * 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% * 1% _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

29
TABLE 2.2.3 (B) 

What has been your or your family's primary response with regard to your vehicle or vehicle travel and the currently higelse? - Unaided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194  Ride bike more 7 1 1 1 4 0 4 3 0 4 3 4 4 3  1% * 2% 1% 3%F 0 1% 2%I 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%  All other drive less 16 4 1 1 4 3 6 5 6 5 12 4 4 2  mentions 2% 2% 2% * 2% 1% 2% 4%J 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% No effect/No change/Travel 158 20 14 20 22 56 63 27 67 64 108 50 29 27 as often 16% 11% 16% 12% 13% 25%BD 17% 19% 19%J 13% 18%L 12% 10% 14%  E Gas prices are ridiculous/ 125 32 10 21 18 26 49 19 35 72 68 58 52 23 outrageous/too high 13% 19%E 11% 13% 10% 11% 13% 13% 10% 14% 12% 14% 18% 12% Don't like it/Unhappy/Angry 77 12 7 17 10 18 32 10 31 36 44 33 21 17  8% 7% 8% 11% 6% 8% 8% 7% 9% 7% 7% 8% 7% 9% Just pay the price/Using 53 0 7 12 12 13 21 4 20 29 32 21 15 11 gas/driving is a necessity 5% 0 8%B 7%B 7%B 6%B 6% 3% 6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 6% Use most fuel-efficient 25 0 2 1 8 10 11 1 8 17 13 12 7 7 vehicle I own 3% 0 3% 1% 5%BD 4%BD 3% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 2% 4% Gas prices are result of 22 2 2 5 3 6 11 3 9 10 17 6 4 4 price gouging/corruption, 2% 1% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% etc. Changed Vehicle (Net) 22 3 1 2 7 3 10 2 10 9 12 9 6 6  2% 2% 1% 1% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3%  Bought more fuel- 11 1 1 2 3 1 5 1 8 3 8 3 2 3  efficient vehicle 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% * 1% 1% 2%J 1% 1% 1% 1% 1%  Sold/Traded in vehicle 4 0 0 1 2 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 2  * 0 0 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% * 1% * 1% 1% 1%  All other changed vehicle 8 2 0 0 3 2 4 1 3 4 4 4 2 2  mentions 1% 1% 0 0 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

30
TABLE 2.2.3 (C) 

What has been your or your family's primary response with regard to your vehicle or vehicle travel and the currently higelse? - Unaided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194 Don't own car/Don't know 20 9 1 5 0 3 2 9 8 3 19 1 1 1 how to drive 2% 5%EF 1% 3%E 0 1% * 6%IJ 2%J 1% 3%L * * * Other 93 18 8 11 14 28 38 19 28 44 59 32 26 15  9% 10% 9% 7% 8% 12% 10% 13% 8% 9% 10% 8% 9% 8% Don't know 56 16 5 4 7 10 18 3 21 31 34 22 15 10  6% 9%D 6% 3% 4% 4% 5% 2% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 5% _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

31
TABLE 2.2.4 

If these high gasoline prices continued for the next several years, with respect to purchasing a new vehicle, how much mthe vehicle you purchase to be? Would you say... - Aided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Unweighted Total 1042 173 89 161 180 252 404 179 408 452 679 356 252 179 Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194 25% or less (Net) 205 37 11 25 41 59 91 23 80 101 117 86 60 46  20% 21% 12% 15% 24%C 26%CD 24% 16% 23% 20% 20% 21% 20% 24%  0 to 15% more efficient 94 20 7 11 17 25 38 11 33 50 50 42 32 22  (7.5) 9% 12% 7% 7% 10% 11% 10% 7% 9% 10% 9% 11% 11% 12%  16 to 25% more efficient 111 17 4 14 24 34 54 13 48 51 67 43 28 24  (20.5) 11% 10% 5% 8% 14%C 15%C 14% 9% 14% 10% 11% 11% 9% 12% 26% or more (Net) 663 107 63 117 120 156 243 87 223 353 380 281 207 136  66% 62% 71% 71% 69% 68% 65% 59% 64% 70%H 64% 70% 70% 70%  26 to 49% more efficient 121 9 13 18 24 38 54 17 48 56 76 45 37 21  (37.5) 12% 5% 14%B 11% 14%B 16%B 14% 12% 14% 11% 13% 11% 12% 11%  50% or greater increase 542 98 50 99 96 119 189 70 176 297 303 237 170 114  in efficiency (55) 54% 57% 56% 60% 55% 52% 51% 48% 50% 59%HI 52% 59%K 58% 59% Do not plan to purchase new 111 24 15 16 12 11 32 32 38 36 78 28 21 11 vehicle (vol.) 11% 14%EF 17%EF 10% 7% 5% 9% 22%IJ 11% 7% 13%L 7% 7% 5% Don't know/Don't drive 22 5 1 6 0 4 7 4 7 11 14 8 6 2  2% 3%E 1% 4%E 0 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% Mean 43.0 43.3 45.8 45.6F 42.2 41.0 41.3 43.7 41.7 43.7 42.9 43.3 43.2 42.6 44Standard Deviation 17.19 18.37 15.42 15.79 17.35 17.57 17.54 16.70 17.39 17.16 17.00 17.39 17.40 17.82 16.Standard Error 0.57 1.54 1.82 1.33 1.35 1.15 0.92 1.44 0.92 0.85 0.71 0.96 1.15 1.38 2._____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

32
TABLE 2.2.5 (A) 

If these high gasoline prices continued for the next several years, what actions would you take with respect to driving reduce the miles you travel by... - Aided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Unweighted Total 1042 173 89 161 180 252 404 179 408 452 679 356 252 179 Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194 Any (Net) 829 142 75 145 147 197 318 112 291 425 478 346 246 175  83% 82% 84% 88% 85% 86% 85% 76% 83% 85%H 81% 86% 84% 90%  25% or less (Subnet) 514 56 45 85 102 140 215 75 185 254 301 212 153 108  51% 32% 50%B 52%B 59%B 61%B 58% 51% 53% 51% 51% 53% 52% 55%  Less than 5% (4) 162 19 16 30 31 46 71 23 45 94 74 88 59 38  16% 11% 18% 18% 18% 20%B 19% 16% 13% 19%I 13% 22%K 20% 20%  5 to 15% (10) 160 20 15 27 32 41 57 28 64 68 109 52 43 29  16% 11% 16% 16% 19% 18% 15% 19% 18% 14% 18%L 13% 15% 15%  16 to 25% (20.5) 191 18 15 28 39 53 87 24 76 91 119 72 51 40  19% 10% 16% 17% 23%B 23%B 23% 16% 22% 18% 20% 18% 17% 21%  26% or more (Subnet) 315 86 30 59 44 58 103 37 106 171 177 134 93 67  31% 50%CDE 34% 36%F 25% 25% 28% 25% 30% 34%H 30% 33% 32% 34%  F  26 to 49% (37.5) 88 17 4 18 13 23 32 7 29 52 47 41 29 18  9% 10% 5% 11% 7% 10% 9% 5% 8% 10%H 8% 10% 10% 9%  50% or more (55) 227 69 26 41 31 35 71 30 77 119 130 93 63 49  23% 40%DEF 29%F 25%F 18% 15% 19% 20% 22% 24% 22% 23% 22% 25% None (0) 121 21 10 12 19 30 46 20 44 56 77 43 40 13  12% 12% 11% 7% 11% 13% 12% 14% 13% 11% 13% 11% 14% 7% Don't know/Don't drive 50 11 5 8 8 3 9 14 14 19 33 14 9 7  5% 6%F 5% 5%F 4% 1% 2% 10%IJ 4% 4% 6% 3% 3% 4% Mean (Including None) 23.1 31.1DE 24.6 25.1F 20.9 19.6 21.3 20.8 23.0 23.8 22.9 23.1 22.1 24.7 25 F _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

33
TABLE 2.2.5 (B) 

If these high gasoline prices continued for the next several years, what actions would you take with respect to driving reduce the miles you travel by... - Aided  Household Income  ------------------------------- H.H. Size Children In H.H. ---- $25K- $35K- $50K- $75K Dual ------------- ---------------------- HS  LT LT LT LT Or Income 3 Or Under 12- Incom Total $25K $35K $50K $75K More H.H. 1 2 More None Total 12 17 ple (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I) (J) (K) (L) (M) (N) (Weighted Total 1000 173 90* 164 173 230 373 146 348 501 589 403 294 194 Standard Deviation 20.57 22.90 22.03 20.81 19.24 18.49 19.53 20.51 20.15 20.83 20.35 20.77 20.60 20.57 22.(Including None) Standard Error (Including 0.65 1.81 2.40 1.67 1.47 1.17 0.98 1.62 1.02 1.00 0.80 1.12 1.31 1.56 2.None) Mean (Excluding None) 26.5 35.7CD 27.9 27.1F 23.6 22.5 24.4 24.6 26.5 26.9 26.6 26.0 25.6 26.5 29 EF Standard Deviation 19.89 20.91 21.40 20.33 18.82 18.07 19.01 20.10 19.37 20.17 19.55 20.25 20.03 20.15 21.(Excluding None) Standard Error (Excluding 0.68 1.76 2.49 1.70 1.52 1.24 1.02 1.72 1.05 1.03 0.83 1.16 1.38 1.59 2.None) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Proportions/Means: Columns Tested (5% risk level) - B/C/D/E/F - H/I/J - K/L - O/P/Q/R Overlap formulae used. * small base 

34
F1147-E(12/2004) 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this 

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Executive Services and Communications Directorate (0704-0188). Respondents 

should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ORGANIZATION.

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

January 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Report 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

DE-AC36-99-GO10337 

5b. GRANT NUMBER

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy (Third Edition) 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

 NREL/TP-620-39047 

5e. TASK NUMBER

ASA5.1315 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Compiled by M. Kubik 

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

1617 Cole Blvd. 

Golden, CO 80401-3393 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER

NREL/TP-620-39047 

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)

NREL 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

12. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

National Technical Information Service 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

5285 Port Royal Road 

Springfield, VA 22161 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 Words)

This report has been assembled to provide the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy (EERE) with an idea of how the American public views various transportation, energy, and 

environmental issues. The data presented in this report have been drawn from multiple sources: surveys conducted by 

the Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that are commissioned 

and funded by EERE, Gallup polls, news organization polls, surveys conducted by independent groups and academic 

institutions, and other sources. 

15. SUBJECT TERMS

analysis; transportation; consumers; energy; oil; gasoline; fuel; foreign oil dependence; sport utility vehicles; SUVs; 

fuel-efficiency vehicles; ethanol; hybrid-electric vehicles; advanced-technology vehicles; diesel; gas prices; 

greenhouse gas emissions; environment; Michelle Kubik; Transportation Energy Survey Data Book 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON 

a. REPORT 

Unclassified 

b. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified

c. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified

17. LIMITATION 

OF ABSTRACT

UL 

18. NUMBER 

OF PAGES 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code)

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18