NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Consumer Views on 

Transportation and Advanced 

Vehicle Technologies

Mark Singer

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-64840

September 2015
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Consumer Views on 

Transportation and Advanced 

Vehicle Technologies

Mark Singer

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Prepared under Task No. VTP2.2700

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5400-64840

September 2015 
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.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.

Available electronically at SciTech Connect http:/www.osti.gov/scitech

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

OSTI http://www.osti.gov

Phone: 865.576.8401

Fax: 865.576.5728

Email: reports@osti.gov

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

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandra, VA 22312

NTIS http://www.ntis.gov

Phone: 800.553.6847 or 703.605.6000

Fax: 703.605.6900

Email: orders@ntis.gov

Cover Photos by Dennis Schroeder: (left to right) NREL 26173, NREL 18302, NREL 19758, NREL 29642, NREL 19795.

NREL prints on paper that contains recycled content.
iii

Consumer Views Quick Facts

The following findings are based on a series of selected historical studies that cover consumer 

attitudes toward a wide range of transportation-related topics. 

Fuel Economy Perceptions

• 56% of respondents in 2007 considered fuel economy during their latest vehicle purchase. 

• 76% of respondents in 2007 expressed satisfaction with their current vehicles’ fuel economy. 

• In 2011 gas prices averaged $3.63 per gallon; respondents expected prices to range from 

$3.40 to $5.40 per gallon over the following 5 years. 

• In 2011 respondents on average stated that under a worst-case scenario a vehicle with a U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency rating of 25 miles per gallon would achieve only 18 miles 

per gallon. 

• 77% of respondents in 2011 required a 5 mile per gallon or greater fuel economy rating 

difference between two vehicles for fuel economy to impact their final purchase decisions.

• In comparison to other vehicle attributes, the importance of fuel economy for respondents 

rose steadily in the 1990s and the early 2000s but has been flat to declining since 2011. 

Future Technology Options

• Respondents most often selected electricity as the best alternative to gasoline in comparison 

to hydrogen and ethanol between 2000 and 2011. 

• Respondents most often selected ethanol as the worst alternative to gasoline in comparison to 

hydrogen and electricity between 2000 and 2011. 

• A fuel’s perceived availability, affordability, and positive environmental impacts were given 

as top reasons for choosing a fuel as the best alternative to gasoline between 2000 and 2011.

Ethanol Perceptions

• 69% of respondents in 2006 stated that they did not know anything about E85. 

• 66% of respondents in 2006, once provided information about E85, stated a willingness to 

drive at least 2 miles out of their way to purchase it.

• 57% of respondents in 2006, once provided information about E85, were willing to pay an 

increase in fuel costs of 10% or higher in order to use it. 

Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments

• 57% of respondents in 2006 believed they could plug in a vehicle at home. 

• 56% of respondents in 2006 believed a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle could be a good fit for 

their households. 

• 24% of respondents in 2006 were considering small sedans for their next vehicle purchases. 

• 68% of respondents in 2006 stated a willingness to consider a plug-in electric vehicle with an 

incremental cost.

• 47% of respondents in 2013 said plug-in electric vehicles were just as good as or better than 

gasoline vehicles.

Willingness to Pay for Efficiency

• New and used car purchasers reported an equal willingness to pay an increased upfront 

vehicle cost in exchange for undiscounted fuel cost savings over the life of the vehicle.

• A fuel-efficient vehicle technology would require an undiscounted payback period of 1 to 1.5 

years for 50% of respondents to state a willingness to pay an increased upfront vehicle cost.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
iv

Acronyms

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

E85 high-level ethanol-gasoline blend containing 51%-83% ethanol 

EV electric vehicle

FFV flex-fuel vehicle

HEV hybrid electric vehicle

mpg miles per gallon

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

ORC Opinion Research Corporation

PEV plug-in electric vehicle

PHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehicle

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
v 

Acknowledgments

This work has been supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Vehicle 

Technologies Office. Additional support came from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 

which is a national laboratory of the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

The author would like to thank advanced vehicle technology deployment subject matter experts 

including Alicia Birky, Aaron Brooker, Stacy Davis, David Greene, Zhenhong Lin, Changzheng 

Liu, Dawn Manley, Michael Nicholas, Aymeric Rousseau, Dan Santini, Tom Stephens, Joann 

Zhou, Caley Johnson, George Mitchell, and Margo Melendez who provided helpful insights into 

how vehicle technologies might be accepted into the marketplace. 

The author would like to specifically thank Jake Ward at DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office,

without whom the resources necessary for this research would not be available. 

All judgments in the final analytic methodologies and interpretations are the responsibility of the 

author. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
vi 

Table of Contents 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ viii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ ix

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. x

1 Fuel Economy Perceptions ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Fuel Economy Perceptions Overview ........................................................................................... 2

1.2 Retail Gasoline Prices ................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 April 2007 Vehicle Ownership...................................................................................................... 5

1.4 April 2007 Fuel Economy Considerations.................................................................................... 6

1.5 April 2007 How Fuel Economy Is Considered ............................................................................. 7

1.6 April 2007 Reasons for Not Considering Fuel Economy.............................................................. 8

1.7 April 2007 Fuel Economy Satisfaction ......................................................................................... 9

1.8 April 2007 Fuel Costs and Frequency of Fuel Fill-ups............................................................... 10

1.9 April 2007 Stop-and-Go versus Highway Conditions................................................................. 11

1.10 June 2011 Fuel Economy Ratings and Expectations................................................................... 12

1.11 June 2011 Expectation of Gasoline Price.................................................................................... 13

1.12 Attribute Importance for Vehicle Choice.................................................................................... 14

1.13 July 2013 Vehicle Attribute Preferences..................................................................................... 15

1.14 July 2013 Individual Vehicle Attribute Values........................................................................... 16

2 Future Vehicle Technology Alternatives.......................................................................................... 17

2.1 Future Vehicle Technology Alternatives Overview.................................................................... 18

2.2 December 2005 Factors that Impact Consumer Interest in Vehicle Fuel Types......................... 19

2.3 The Best Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity................................................ 20

2.4 Reasons Ethanol Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline.............................................................. 21

2.5 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline .......................................................... 22

2.6 The Worst Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity............................................. 23

2.7 Reasons Ethanol Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ........................................................... 24

2.8 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ....................................................... 25

2.9 August 2007/2008 Hybrid and Diesel versus Gasoline Vehicles................................................ 26

2.10 August 2007 Hybrid and Diesel Reasoning ................................................................................ 27

3 Ethanol Perceptions........................................................................................................................... 28

3.1 Ethanol Perceptions Overview.................................................................................................... 29

3.2 September 2006 E85 Awareness and Positive E85 Opinions..................................................... 30

3.3 September 2006 Negative E85 Opinions .................................................................................... 31

3.4 September 2006 Perceived E85 Availability and FFV Awareness............................................. 32

3.5 September 2006 Amount Willing To Pay for E85 ...................................................................... 33

3.6 September 2006 Distance Willing To Drive for E85 .................................................................. 34

3.7 September 2006 Willingness To Pay More for E85 versus Gasoline ......................................... 35

4 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments ................................................................................................. 36

4.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments Overview........................................................................... 37

4.2 June 2006 Type of Vehicle for Next Planned Purchase and Willingness To Purchase a Hybrid 

Vehicle ........................................................................................................................................ 38

4.3 April 2006 Type of Housing ....................................................................................................... 39

4.4 April 2006 Parking Location and Electricity Availability .......................................................... 40

4.5 April 2006 Awareness of PHEVs and Household Fit ................................................................. 41

4.6 July 2013 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Awareness and Exposure .................................................... 42

4.7 July 2013 PEVs versus Conventional Gasoline Vehicles ........................................................... 43

4.8 July 2013 Interest in Wireless Charging ..................................................................................... 44

5 Willingness to Pay for Efficiency...................................................................................................... 45

5.1 Willingness To Pay for Efficiency Overview ............................................................................. 46

5.2 June 2011 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for Increased Fuel Efficiency ............................... 47

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
vii 

5.3 June 2011 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy....................... 48

5.4 April 2012 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for More Efficient Vehicle (Revised Amounts).. 49

5.5 April 2012 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy (Revised 

Amounts)..................................................................................................................................... 50

5.6 January 2013 Likelihood of Purchasing a New versus a Used Vehicle ...................................... 51

5.7 January 2013 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy (New versus 

Used Vehicle Purchasers)............................................................................................................ 52

5.8 Implied Payback Periods for Willingness To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy ................... 53

References................................................................................................................................................. 54

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
viii

List of Tables

Table 1. April 2007 Question 3: Terms for the Rate at Which Vehicles Use Fuel....................................... 6

Table 2. April 2007 Question 4: Consideration of Fuel Economy for Vehicle Purchase ............................. 6

Table 3. April 2007 Question 5: How Fuel Economy Is Considered ........................................................... 7

Table 4. April 2007 Question 6: Reasons Fuel Economy Not Considered................................................... 8

Table 5. April 2007 Question 7: Satisfaction with Fuel Economy ............................................................... 9

Table 6. June 2011 Question 2: Impact of Fuel Economy When Comparing Vehicles for Purchase ........ 12

Table 7. Most Important Vehicle Attribute in Choice of Next Vehicle...................................................... 14

Table 8. July 2013 Question 2: Rate Importance of Vehicle Attributes..................................................... 16

Table 9. December 2005: Factors That Impact Purchase of a New Vehicle Fuel Technology .................. 19

Table 10. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline............................................ 20

Table 11. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline................................................ 21

Table 12. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline ............................................ 22

Table 13. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ......................................... 23

Table 14. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ............................................. 24

Table 15. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline.......................................... 25

Table 16. Comparison of Hybrid and Diesel Vehicles with Conventional Gasoline Vehicles................... 26

Table 17. Reasons for Selecting a Conventional Gasoline Vehicle over a Hybrid or Diesel Vehicle........ 26

Table 18. Reasons for Selecting a Diesel Vehicle over a Hybrid or Conventional Gasoline Vehicle........ 27

Table 19. Reasons for Selecting a Hybrid Vehicle over a Conventional Gasoline or Diesel Vehicle........ 27

Table 20. September 2006 Question 1: E85 Comparison to Gasoline........................................................ 30

Table 21. September 2006 Question 2: Reasons for Positive E85 Sentiments........................................... 30

Table 22. September 2006 Question 3: Reasons for Negative E85 Sentiments ......................................... 31

Table 23. September 2006 Question 4: Perception of E85 Availability ..................................................... 32

Table 24. September 2006 Question 5: E85 Vehicle Awareness................................................................ 32

Table 25. September 2006 Question 8: Willingness to Pay More for E85 versus Gasoline....................... 35

Table 26. June 2006 Question 1: Type of Vehicle for Next Planned Purchase .......................................... 38

Table 27. June 2006 Question 2: Willingness to Purchase a Hybrid Vehicle............................................. 38

Table 28. April 2006 Question 1: Type of Housing.................................................................................... 39

Table 29. April 2006 Question 2A: Locations Where Vehicles are Parked ............................................... 40

Table 30. April 2006 Question 3A: Availability of Electrical Outlet Where Vehicle is Parked ................ 40

Table 31. April 2006 Question 2B: Awareness of PHEVs......................................................................... 41

Table 32. April 2006 question 3B: Opinion of PHEVs .............................................................................. 41

Table 33. July 2013 Question 1: Naming PEVs ......................................................................................... 42

Table 34. July 2013 Question 2: Exposure to PEVs................................................................................... 42

Table 35. July 2013 Question 3: Opinion of PEVs..................................................................................... 43

Table 36. July 2013 Question 4: Interest in Wireless Charging ................................................................. 44

Table 37. January 2013 Question 1: Likelihood of Purchasing a New versus a Used Vehicle .................. 51

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
ix

List of Figures

Figure 1. U.S. retail gasoline prices, 2000–2015 .......................................................................................... 4

Figure 2. April 2007 question 1: New vehicle purchases ............................................................................. 5

Figure 3. April 2007 question 2: Operating vehicles in household............................................................... 5

Figure 4. April 2007 question 8: Amount spent per fill-up......................................................................... 10

Figure 5. April 2007 question 9: Frequency of weekly fill-ups.................................................................. 10

Figure 6. April 2007 question 10: Stop-and-go versus highway conditions............................................... 11

Figure 7. June 2011 question 1: Opinions on fuel economy ratings........................................................... 12

Figure 8. June 2011 question 3: Expectation of highest gasoline price ...................................................... 13

Figure 9. June 2011 question 4: Expectation of lowest gasoline price ....................................................... 13

Figure 10. Actual national weekly gasoline price distribution since June 2011......................................... 13

Figure 11. July 2013 question 1: Most important attribute in choosing a vehicle ...................................... 15

Figure 12. July 2013 question 2: Rate importance of vehicle attributes..................................................... 16

Figure 13. Best replacement for gasoline.................................................................................................... 20

Figure 14. Worst replacement for gasoline................................................................................................. 23

Figure 15. September 2006 question 6: Amount willing to pay for E85 .................................................... 33

Figure 16. September 2006 question 7: Distance willing to drive for E85................................................. 34

Figure 17. July 2013 Question 3: PEV Exposure and PEV Opinions ........................................................ 43

Figure 18. July 2013 question 5: Willingness to pay more for PEVs......................................................... 44

Figure 19. June 2011 question 1: Incremental cost willing to pay for increased fuel efficiency................ 47

Figure 20. June 2011 question 2: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency................ 48

Figure 21. April 2012 question 1: Incremental cost willing to pay for increased fuel efficiency............... 49

Figure 22. April 2012 question 2: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency............... 50

Figure 23. January 2013: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency ............................ 52

Figure 24. Compiled results: Implied undiscounted payback periods........................................................ 53

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
x 

Introduction

Vehicle manufacturers, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories, universities, private 

researchers, and organizations from around the globe are pursuing advanced vehicle technologies 

that aim to reduce the consumption of petroleum in the form of gasoline and diesel. In order to 

make these technologies most appealing to the marketplace, they must take consumer sentiment 

into account. This report details study findings of broad American public sentiments toward

issues that surround advanced vehicle technologies and is supported by the DOE’s Vehicle 

Technologies Office in alignment with its mission to develop and deploy these technologies to 

improve energy security, provide mobility flexibility, reduce transportation costs, and increase

environmental sustainability. 

Understanding and tracking consumer sentiments can influence the prioritization of development 

efforts by identifying barriers to and opportunities for the broad acceptance of new technologies. 

Predicting consumer behavior toward developing technologies and products is inherently 

inexact. A person’s stated preference in an interview about a hypothetical setting often does not 

match his or her revealed preference, which is demonstrated in an actual decision-making 

situation (Kane and Wasi 2013). This difference makes tracking actual consumer actions

ultimately more valuable in understanding potential behavior. However, when developing 

technologies are not yet available and actual behaviors cannot be tracked, stated preferences 

provide some insight into how consumers may react in new circumstances. In this context this 

report provides an additional source to validate other data and a new resource when no data are 

available. 

This report summarizes study data captured from December 2005 through June 2015 relevant to 

Vehicle Technologies Office research efforts at the time of the studies. The report broadly covers 

respondents’ sentiments about vehicle fuel economy, future vehicle technology alternatives, 

ethanol as a vehicle fuel, plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), and willingness to pay for vehicle 

efficiency. This report represents a renewed effort to publicize study findings and make 

consumer sentiment data available to researchers, policy-makers, and the public. Planned reports 

will follow that provide detailed data from new studies that target the primary challenges to and 

opportunities for advanced vehicle technology deployment. The effort continually refines study 

content to maintain and improve the relevance and validity of results. 

Most of the data presented in this report are the results of interviews conducted by the Opinion 

Research Corporation (ORC) for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The ORC 

CARAVAN studies are conducted via telephone with randomly selected telephone numbers. 

Starting with a December 2012 study, all studies included in this report use a dual-frame 

sampling design in which the sample is drawn from independent landline and cell phone sample 

frames. All studies are based on responses from individuals across the country who are 18 years 

old and older. Response samples are weight-adjusted to better ensure the sample reflects the 

general U.S. population. The CARAVAN studies rely on ORC’s weighting mechanism, which 

pulls from data reported in the National Health Interview Survey and the U.S. Census Bureau’s 

Current Population Survey. When ORC study data are presented, the specific ORC study number 

is noted along with the year of the study and the study sample size. Sample sizes are typically 

1,000 respondents. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
xi 

In many instances throughout this report, the response percentages in tables and figures do not 

sum to exactly 100%, because the raw data are rounded. For the same reason, summary data 

points called out in the body of the report may not match the results that were attained by 

summing data from the tables and figures.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
1 

1 Fuel Economy Perceptions 

Contents

1.1 Fuel Economy Perceptions Overview ...............................................................................2

1.2 Retail Gasoline Prices ........................................................................................................4

1.3 April 2007 Vehicle Ownership ..........................................................................................5

1.4 April 2007 Fuel Economy Considerations ........................................................................6

1.5 April 2007 How Fuel Economy Is Considered .................................................................7

1.6 April 2007 Reasons for Not Considering Fuel Economy ..................................................8

1.7 April 2007 Fuel Economy Satisfaction .............................................................................9

1.8 April 2007 Fuel Costs and Frequency of Fuel Fill-ups ...................................................10

1.9 April 2007 Stop-and-Go versus Highway Conditions .....................................................11

1.10 June 2011 Fuel Economy Ratings and Expectations .......................................................12

1.11 June 2011 Expectation of Gasoline Price ........................................................................13

1.12 Attribute Importance for Vehicle Choice ........................................................................14

1.13 July 2013 Vehicle Attribute Preferences .........................................................................15

1.14 July 2013 Individual Vehicle Attribute Values ...............................................................16

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
2 

1.1 Fuel Economy Perceptions Overview

Studies have investigated how consumers perceive their current rate of petroleum consumption, 

or fuel economy, and how they may expect fuel economy to change in the future. These findings 

help to define how advanced vehicle technologies that seek to reduce the rate of petroleum 

consumption align with past and current consumer and market interests. For drivers to use less 

petroleum, they will need to (1) adjust their driving behaviors to be more fuel efficient, (2) 

purchase vehicles that are more fuel efficient, or (3) purchase vehicles that rely on an alternative 

fuel technology. In order to reduce fuel consumption, drivers will need to be aware of vehicle 

fuel economies, feel that their vehicles’ fuel economy is important, and then make fuel efficient 

decisions. 

Perhaps the most obvious effects of fuel economy for a vehicle owner are the costs associated 

with using fuel. This section begins with an overview of gasoline prices in the United States 

since 2000. Two studies detailed in this report investigated vehicle fuel economy: one in April 

2007 and one in June 2011. In April 2007 gasoline prices were about $3 per gallon and in the 

middle of a rise that would not stop until the 2008 financial collapse. The June 2011 study took 

place after the price had rebounded from the collapse and would remain near $3.50 per gallon 

until 2014. 

These studies coincided with updates to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s fuel 

economy ratings and how those ratings are displayed on new vehicle labels. In 2008 the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency updated the way vehicle fuel economy was rated to more 

closely reflect real-world driving conditions (DOE 2008). The ratings largely resulted in vehicles 

being rated with lower fuel economies than previously. In 2011 the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency updated the vehicle label (DOE 2011) to incorporate additional information 

about fuel costs associated with a particular vehicle, comparisons of the vehicle’s fuel economy 

with that of other vehicles, and environmental impacts of the vehicle’s fuel economy. 

The 2007 study showed that fuel economy was considered by a majority of respondents (56%) 

during their latest vehicle purchases. Those that did not consider fuel economy stated this was

because they considered a specific vehicle type or other characteristics to have been more 

important than fuel efficiency. Overall 76% of respondents reported satisfaction with their 

vehicles’ fuel economy. 

The June 2011 study looked at how fuel economy ratings impacted respondent decision making 

and how respondents thought gasoline prices might change in the future. Respondents reported 

pessimism about whether vehicles could actually achieve the fuel economy displayed on the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy label. Respondents reported they expected to 

achieve the rating only under the best-case scenario and that under the worst-case scenario a 

vehicle rated at 25 miles per gallon (mpg) would achieve less than 18 mpg. This lack of trust in 

the rating may partly explain why a large majority (77%) would require a difference in fuel 

economy of 5 mpg or more to make a vehicle purchase decision based on fuel economy. The 

study results do not necessarily reflect that the 2008 label update did not improve the alignment 

of vehicle rating with actual driver fuel economy, because not all respondents would have 

recently purchased vehicles and had experience with the new label. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
3 

At the time of the 2011 study respondents on average expected gasoline prices to range from a 

low of $3.40 to a high of $5.40 per gallon over the following 5 years. Respondents seemed to be 

expressing a belief that gasoline prices would increase from the actual cost of $3.63 at the time 

of the study. However, in the time since the study, prices remained near $3.50 before dropping 

significantly in 2014. 

Fuel economy is only one of many attributes consumers consider when purchasing vehicles. 

Surveys dating back to 1980 have asked respondents to choose the most important vehicle 

attribute during the purchase process. The trends show the relative importance of fuel economy 

rose steadily in the 1990s and into the early 2000s but has been flat to declining in recent years. 

The importance of fuel economy remained high during the gasoline price drop near the time of

the 2008 financial collapse (see Figure 1), but fuel economy importance appeared to have 

dropped in 2014 when gasoline prices dropped significantly. A 2013 study further expanded the 

set of attributes respondents could consider and ultimately showed that although fuel economy 

was important, a broad array of attributes including dependability, price, and safety were just as

or more important than fuel economy in the final purchase decision. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
4 

1.2 Retail Gasoline Prices

 

Figure 1. U.S. retail gasoline prices, 2000–2015

Sources: 

EIA. 2015. “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

accessed August 7, 2015: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/. 

The Economist. 2014. “Why the Oil Price Is Falling.” The Economist, accessed August 7, 

2015: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/12/economist-explains-4. 

U.S. retail gasoline prices, while volatile, rose throughout the 2000s until the global financial 

collapse in 2008. Prices then rebounded close to previous highs in 2011, when they remained 

relatively stable before falling throughout 2014. The decline is believed to be due in part to 

lower economic activity as world markets continue to adjust to the 2008 financial collapse, 

increased U.S. oil production, steady OPEC oil production, and increased efficiencies in fuel 

use. Studies of consumer perceptions of fuel economy were completed during the time period 

in Figure 1 in April 2007 when prices were climbing and again in June 2011 when prices had 

rebounded from the 2008 drop.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
5 

1.3 April 2007 Vehicle Ownership

Figure 2. April 2007 question 1: New vehicle purchases 

Figure 3. April 2007 question 2: Operating vehicles in household

Source:

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=1,000. 

The April 2007 study began by asking respondents how many vehicles they had recently 

purchased and how many vehicles their household currently owned. In the 7-year period from 

January 2000 through April 2007, the mean number of new car purchases by respondents 

was 1.1. The mean number of cars owned by respondent households was 2, and 65% of 

households reported owning one or two cars.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
6 

1.4 April 2007 Fuel Economy Considerations

What do you call the number of miles a vehicle 

gets on a gallon of fuel? Is it called . . .

Percent of

Responses

Fuel economy 8%

Gas mileage 36%

mpg 48%

Other 1%

None of these 1%

Don't know 6%

Table 1. April 2007 Question 3: Terms for the Rate at Which Vehicles Use Fuel

Source:

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=1,000. 

Considering the last vehicle you bought, did you consider 

fuel economy when comparing different vehicles?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 56%

No 37%

Never purchased a car 6%

Don't know 2%

Table 2. April 2007 Question 4: Consideration of Fuel Economy for Vehicle Purchase

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=1,000. 

In the April 2007 study respondents identified “mpg” and “Gas mileage” as the terms they 

most commonly used when talking about the rate at which vehicles use fuel.

Fifty-six percent of respondents in the April 2007 study indicated that they considered fuel 

economy at the time of their latest vehicle purchases. A smaller percentage (37%) stated they 

did not consider fuel economy.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
7 

1.5 April 2007 How Fuel Economy Is Considered

In what ways did you consider fuel economy?

Percent of

Responses

Vehicle mpg ratings 54%

Fuel cost savings and vehicle costs 14%

Characteristics of vehicle 10%

Type of vehicle 7%

Most important/One of the most important considerations 4%

Comparison of vehicles (unspecified) 4%

Environmental concerns 3%

Amount of distance traveled 2%

Carpooling/Using car less frequently 2%

Considered it but not a major factor 1%

I drive often/drive long distances 1%

Read manufacturers sticker info 1%

Research in magazines/ newspapers 1%

Other 7%

Don't know/No response 8%

Table 3. April 2007 Question 5: How Fuel Economy Is Considered

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=561. 

Note: 

Some responses were grouped under multiple reasons and therefore percentages do not sum to 

100. Only respondents who answered in question 4 that they did consider fuel economy during 

their last vehicle purchases were asked question 5.

In April 2007, 56% of respondents stated they did consider fuel economy during their latest 

vehicle purchases. These respondents stated they took into account the fuel efficiency rating 

as well as vehicle and fuel costs associated with the vehicles.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
8 

1.6 April 2007 Reasons for Not Considering Fuel Economy

Why didn’t you consider fuel economy in your last car 

purchase? 

Percent of

Responses

Type of vehicle 21%

Characteristics of vehicle 12%

Cost/Price 12%

Don't care/Not important/Not a priority 11%

Purchased in past 9%

Purchased for specific purpose 7%

Familiarity 5%

Someone else purchased the vehicle 4%

Just didn't think of it 3%

Don't drive often/long distances 3%

Don't own/drive a car 1%

Gas is less expensive 1%

Other 8%

Don't know/No response 10%

Table 4. April 2007 Question 6: Reasons Fuel Economy Not Considered

Source:

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=365. 

Note: 

Some responses were grouped under multiple reasons; therefore, percentages do not sum to 100. 

Only respondents who answered in question 4 that they did not consider fuel economy during 

their last vehicle purchases were asked question 6.

In April 2007, 37% of respondents stated they did not consider fuel economy during their 

latest vehicle purchases. These respondents stated they were interested in a specific vehicle 

type or other characteristics of vehicles viewed as more important than fuel efficiency.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
9 

1.7 April 2007 Fuel Economy Satisfaction 

Are you satisfied with the fuel economy of the last 

vehicle you bought?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 76%

No 23%

Don't know 2%

Table 5. April 2007 Question 7: Satisfaction with Fuel Economy

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=943. 

Note: 

Respondents who answered, “Never purchased a car” to question 4 were not asked question 7. 

 

In April 2007 a strong majority (76%) of respondents were satisfied with the fuel economy of 

their vehicles. Fifty-six percent of respondents in the same study had previously stated in 

question 4 that they had considered fuel economy at the time of their last purchases. A 

majority of respondents may have been voicing that although fuel economy is important, they 

did not need to improve their current fuel economy.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
10 

1.8 April 2007 Fuel Costs and Frequency of Fuel Fill-ups

Figure 4. April 2007 question 8: Amount spent per fill-up 

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=1,000. 

Figure 5. April 2007 question 9: Frequency of weekly fill-ups 

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=939. 

Note: Respondents who answered, “Don’t Drive” to question 8 were not asked questions 9 and 

10. 

In April 2007 the mean reported cost per fuel purchase was $37.30. Forty-one percent of 

respondents reported spending between $26 and $40. The mean number of fill-ups per week 

was 1.1, and 89% of respondents filled up no more often than two times per week.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
11 

1.9 April 2007 Stop-and-Go versus Highway Conditions

Figure 6. April 2007 question 10: Stop-and-go versus highway conditions

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716159, N=939. 

Note: Respondents who answered “Don’t Drive” to question 8 were not asked questions 9 and 

10. 

In April 2007 respondents reported a broad set of percentages of stop-and-go driving versus 

highway driving. The mean stop-and-go percentage was 54%, indicating survey respondents 

drove slightly more in a stop-and-go setting.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
12 

1.10 June 2011 Fuel Economy Ratings and Expectations

Figure 7. June 2011 question 1: Opinions on fuel economy ratings

When comparing two vehicles you might buy, how 

BIG DOES THE DIFFERENCE in their fuel 

economies have to be to make it an important 

factor in your decision?

1-2 

mpg

3-4 

mpg

5-6 

mpg

> 6

mpg

Don't 

Know

Percent of Responses 6% 13% 22% 55% 4%

Table 6. June 2011 Question 2: Impact of Fuel Economy When Comparing Vehicles for Purchase 

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=1,000. 

In June 2011 respondents expected that vehicles would not reach the official fuel economy 

rating. A vehicle rated at 25 mpg was on average expected to achieve just 23 mpg. 

Respondents believed the vehicle would achieve 18 mpg in a worst-case scenario and only 25 

mpg under a best-case scenario.

In June 2011 a majority (55%) of respondents stated that the difference in fuel economy 

ratings between two vehicles would need to be more than 6 mpg for their decision to be 

affected by the ratings. Seventy-seven percent said the difference would need to be at least 5 

mpg.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
13 

1.11 June 2011 Expectation of Gasoline Price 

Figure 8. June 2011 question 3: Expectation of highest gasoline price

Figure 9. June 2011 question 4: Expectation of lowest gasoline price

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=1,000. 

Figure 10. Actual national weekly gasoline price distribution since June 2011

Source:

EIA. 2015. “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update.” U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

accessed August 7, 2015: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/. 

 

In June 2011, when the average U.S. gasoline price was $3.63 per gallon, respondents on 

average believed the highest price they would pay for gasoline over the next 5 years was 

$5.40 per gallon. Conversely respondents on average felt the lowest price they would pay for 

gasoline in the next 5 years would be $3.40 per gallon. Actual gasoline prices more closely 

matched the respondents’ low price estimate and were less volatile than the range of 

responses indicated.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
14 

1.12 Attribute Importance for Vehicle Choice

Table 7. Most Important Vehicle Attribute in Choice of Next Vehicle

Source: 

For 1980 – 2005 (Kubik 2006); For 2006: ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715238, N=963. 

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716328, N=1,000. For 2008: ORC for NREL 

(2008), Study No. 717318, N=1,000. For 2009: ORC for NREL (2009), Study No. 718339, 

N=1,000. For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=1,000. For 2012: ORC for 

NREL (2012), Study No. 721488/74348, N=1,000. For 2014: ORC for NREL (2014), Study No. 

723238, N=1,014. For 2015: ORC for NREL (2015), Study No. 724268, N=1,006. 

Note: The attribute most often rated as most important in each study is shaded in green while the 

attribute least often rated as most important is shaded in red.

Dating back to 1980, respondents have been asked the question, “Which one of the following 

attributes would be MOST IMPORTANT in your choice of your next vehicle?” The trends 

show that the relative importance of fuel economy rose in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The 

trend has been flat to declining in recent years.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
15 

1.13 July 2013 Vehicle Attribute Preferences

Figure 11. July 2013 question 1: Most important attribute in choosing a vehicle

Sources: 

For 2012: ORC for NREL (2012), Study No. 721488, N=1,000. 

For 2013: ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

In July 2013, “Personality or styling” was included with a list of vehicle attributes from which 

respondents were asked to choose the most important when purchasing vehicles. The new 

attribute was reported as having a relatively low value. Fuel economy dropped in relative 

value and showed the greatest percentage change in comparison to the most recent results 

(November 2012) that did not include the new attribute. The drop in the importance of fuel 

economy cannot be directly associated with the inclusion of the new attribute because the 

surveys were conducted at different times with different populations.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
16 

1.14 July 2013 Individual Vehicle Attribute Values

Please rate the following attributes based on how important they are 

for your choice of your next vehicle. Please use a scale from 1 to 10 

with 1 being 'very low importance' and 10 being 'very high 

importance'. Mean

Standard 

Deviation

Dependability 9.3 1.3

Safety 8.9 1.6

Quality 8.8 1.5

Fuel economy 8.5 1.8

Performance 8.3 1.9

Comfort 8.0 1.8

Low price 7.8 2.2

Segment, such as sedan, pick-up, SUV, van, etc. 7.3 2.5

Personality or styling of the vehicle 6.5 2.5

Table 8. July 2013 Question 2: Rate Importance of Vehicle Attributes 

Figure 12. July 2013 question 2: Rate importance of vehicle attributes

Source:

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

In July 2013, a broad array of attributes was shown to affect decision making during the 

vehicle purchase process. Respondents were asked to rate attributes on a scale from 1 to 10. 

Dependability, safety, and quality received the highest ratings on average by the respondents. 

Fuel economy, performance, and comfort were in a second tier and rated at 8 or higher. Low 

price, segment, and styling were the lowest rated attributes; broader standard deviations 

showed more variability in these attributes’ perceived importance. Although some attributes 

were rated higher than others, none received an average rating lower than 6. This may mean 

that respondents value all of the attributes, and each could affect the final purchase decision.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
17 

2 Future Vehicle Technology Alternatives

Contents

2.1 Future Vehicle Technology Alternatives Overview ........................................................18

2.2 December 2005 Factors that Impact Consumer Interest in Vehicle Fuel Types .............19

2.3 The Best Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity ....................................20

2.4 Reasons Ethanol Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline ..................................................21

2.5 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline ..............................................22

2.6 The Worst Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity .................................23

2.7 Reasons Ethanol Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ...............................................24

2.8 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline ...........................................25

2.9 August 2007/2008 Hybrid and Diesel versus Gasoline Vehicles ....................................26

2.10 August 2007 Hybrid and Diesel Reasoning ....................................................................27

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
18 

2.1 Future Vehicle Technology Alternatives Overview

Surveys capturing sentiments toward technologies that are new to or not yet available in the 

marketplace can inform the efforts to develop and deploy them. Although the public may not 

have a strong familiarity with and understanding of the technologies, captured sentiments 

highlight market interest for a technology or market barriers a technology would need to 

overcome to be successful. 

A December 2005 study inquired about respondent sentiments toward a hypothetical vehicle 

technology that uses a new type of fuel that costs the same as gasoline, but the fuel for which is 

initially not available outside the respondent’s local area. The results show that a lower initial 

vehicle cost is enough for a significant percentage of the population to consider purchasing the 

vehicle. Respondents are walked through a series of conditions in the study that built upon each 

other. The results show a combination of factors beyond vehicle cost that drive a wider 

acceptance of the new technology. Consumers are interested in the vehicle fuel type being

broadly available, the fuel being domestically produced, the vehicle technology being seen as 

cutting edge, and the technology having positive environmental impacts in comparison to 

conventional petroleum vehicles. Respondent acceptance tops 80% for a hypothetical vehicle 

with this combination of traits.

Studies were also conducted between 2000 and 2011 to track which fuel type—electricity, 

ethanol, and hydrogen—is viewed as the best and worst replacement for gasoline. Vehicles that 

can operate on high-level blends of ethanol and gasoline have been available since before 2000 

(DOE 2015). Electric vehicles (EVs) most recently became available in December 2010, and 

hydrogen vehicles have yet to become broadly available. Electricity has been rated the highest 

most often; ethanol most often has been rated lowest. Regardless of the fuel type chosen, the 

perceived availability of the alternative fuel, positive environmental impacts, and affordability 

were often given as reasons for choosing the fuel as the best replacement. Further, the lack of 

these traits was viewed as a negative. Each fuel type had specific traits that drove negative 

sentiments. Respondents were concerned with performance of electricity, negative impacts on 

farmland of ethanol, and safety of hydrogen. 

Similar studies asked respondents in 2007 and 2008 (during a petroleum price spike and 

subsequent financial collapse) to state a preference for purchasing a gasoline vehicle or paying 

an incremental cost for either a hybrid or diesel vehicle that would reduce their total fuel 

consumption. The majority of respondents stated they would be willing to pay the incremental 

cost. That majority grew between the two studies, and respondents were increasingly interested 

in the hybrid vehicle option. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
19 

2.2 December 2005 Factors that Impact Consumer Interest in Vehicle 

Fuel Types

For the next several questions, please pretend that there is 

a new type of vehicle for sale that uses a new kind of fuel 

that is not for sale outside your city or area. The new fuel 

costs the same as gasoline today.

Version A: If this new type of vehicle costs $1,000 less 

than a conventional vehicle, would you buy it?

Version B: If this new type of vehicle costs $4,000 less 

than a conventional vehicle, would you buy it?

Yes

(Ver. A; 

Ver. B)

No

(Ver. A; 

Ver. B)

Don’t 

Know/ 

Refused

(Ver. A; 

Ver. B)

Initial Response 38%; 48% 53%; 43% 9%; 8%

If, in addition to being available in your city or area, the 

fuel for this new type of vehicle were available along all 

interstate highways and a subsidy of $1,000 were provided 

when you bought the vehicle, would you buy it? 52%; 66% 37%; 24% 11%; 10%

If this vehicle and fuel were the wave of the future, and the 

fuel would be available everywhere within ten years, would 

you buy it? 59%; 69% 30%; 22% 11%; 9%

If all of the previous features I just mentioned applied to 

this new vehicle AND the fuel were 100% domestically 

made, would you buy it? 74%; 79% 17%; 13% 9%; 7%

And, finally, if ALL of these previous features applied, AND 

the vehicle has no tailpipe emissions AND uses half as 

much fuel per mile as a conventional vehicle, would you 

buy it? 81%; 82% 13%; 11% 7%; 7%

Table 9. December 2005: Factors That Impact Purchase of a New Vehicle Fuel Technology

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2005), Study No. 714507, N=500. 

Note: The study sample size was 500 respondents for both version A and version B of the 

question set. 

December 2005 study results show that a lower initial vehicle cost and locally available fuel 

are sufficient conditions for a significant percentage of the population (38% and 48% for a 

vehicle that is priced $1,000 and $4,000, respectively, less than a conventional vehicle) to 

consider purchasing a new alternative fuel vehicle technology. If the fuel was available along 

highways and the buyer would receive a $1,000 subsidy when purchasing the vehicle, the 

acceptance of the technology rose to 52% and 66% for vehicles priced $1,000 and $4,000, 

respectively, lower than conventional vehicles. Further, if the fuel was expected to be 

available broadly, the fuel was domestically made, and the vehicle had no tailpipe emissions 

while using half as much fuel per mile, acceptance of the vehicle rose to 81% and 82% for 

vehicles that were priced $1,000 and $4,000, respectively, lower than conventional vehicles.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
20 

2.3 The Best Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity

Figure 13. Best replacement for gasoline 

Sources: 

For 2000 and 2004 (Kubik 2006); For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, 

N=1,000. For 2009: ORC for NREL (2009), Study No. 718118, N=1,000. For 2011: ORC for 

NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=1,000. 

Why did you say ELECTRICITY would be the BEST fuel for use in personal 

vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

Feb 

2007

Aug 

2011

Availability (abundant, common, renewable/inexhaustible, easy to 

produce/manufacture, not dependent on foreign oil) 27% 46%

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

environmental mentions) 17% 18%

Existing/developing technology (electric cars already being developed, 

technology already being used, many things powered by electricity) 12% 

Economical/affordable 7% 13%

Most familiar with it/not familiar with others 7% 8%

Methods of generating (can be solar generated, other related mentions) 5% 9%

Other 6% 8%

Don’t know 15% 7%

Table 10. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline

Sources: 

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=317. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=476. 

Respondents have periodically been asked to state whether electricity, ethanol, or hydrogen 

would be the best replacement for gasoline. Electricity has most often been rated as the best 

replacement. Ethanol has most often been lower than both electricity and hydrogen. A 

February 2007 study is the primary exception; ethanol was the highest-rated fuel type.

The respondents who selected electricity stated the perceived availability of electricity was 

the top reason for being the best replacement for gasoline in 2007 and 2011; the percentage of 

respondents naming availability increased significantly in 2011.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
21 

2.4 Reasons Ethanol Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline

Why did you say ETHANOL would be the BEST fuel for use in personal 

vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

February 

2007

August 

2011

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

produce/manufacture, can generate our own fuel, other related 

mentions) 31% 36%

Methods of generating (made from corn/grain, other related mentions) 14% 

Economical/affordable 10% 14%

Economic benefits 12%

Better for/helps farmers/farming industry 9% 

Most familiar with it/not familiar with others 9% 4%

Existing/developing technology 8% 

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related mentions) 7% 11%

Others not practical/performance concerns 6% 

Performance 6%

Electricity/Ethanol requires oil/coal for generation 5%

Other 7% 19%

Don’t know 12% 7%

Table 11. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline

Sources:

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=358. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=188. 

The respondents who selected ethanol as the best replacement for gasoline most often 

mentioned its availability as the reason for choosing it in studies conducted in 2007 and 2011.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
22 

2.5 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Best Replacement for Gasoline

Why did you say HYDROGEN would be the BEST fuel for use in personal 

vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

February 

2007

August 

2011

Environmental concerns (cleaner, less pollution, other related mentions) 33% 29%

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

renewable/inexhaustible, other related mentions) 26% 37%

Economical/affordable 15% 15%

Others not practical/performance concerns 13%

More efficient 5%

Methods of generating 5%

Performance 13%

Prefer this fuel/Don't like other choices (unspecified) 7%

Don't like that food/corn is used to produce ethanol 7%

Sources of generation 7%

Electricity/Ethanol requires oil/coal for generation 5%

Other 5% 15%

Don’t know 7% 7%

Table 12. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Best Replacement for Gasoline

Sources:

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=252. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=242. 

Respondents selected hydrogen as the best replacement for gasoline primarily because they 

saw it as better for the environment and readily available in the 2007 and 2011 studies.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
23 

2.6 The Worst Replacement for Gasoline and Reasons for Electricity

Figure 14. Worst replacement for gasoline

Sources:

For 2000 and 2004 (Kubik 2006); For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, 

N=1,000. For 2009: ORC for NREL (2009), Study No. 718118, N=1,000. For 2011: ORC for 

NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=1,000. 

Why did you say ELECTRICITY would be the WORST fuel for use in 

personal vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

February 

2007

August 

2011

Too expensive 24% 26%

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

related mentions) 20% 22%

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

Need to charge battery/plug it in 7% 4%

Lack of availability 4% 19%

Performance 18%

Other 10% 14%

Don’t know 10% 4%

Table 13. Reasons Electricity Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline 

Sources:

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=256. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=185. 

Interviews have asked respondents to state whether electricity, ethanol, or hydrogen would be 

the worst replacement for gasoline. Respondents most often stated that ethanol was the worst 

replacement for gasoline. This was particularly true in the 2009 and 2011 studies. Aside from 

the 2000 study, electricity and hydrogen have had similar percentages of the population 

stating they were the worst replacement for gasoline.

The top concerns for electricity as a replacement for gasoline in the 2007 and 2011studies 

were the expense of electricity and the environmental impacts of creating it. The availability 

and performance of electricity as a vehicle fuel were reported as significant concerns in 2011.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
24 

2.7 Reasons Ethanol Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline

Why did you say ETHANOL would be the WORST fuel for use in 

personal vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

February 

2007

August 

2011

Environmental concerns (pollution, creates environmental problems, 

other related mentions) 23% 24%

Uses food/farmland to produce fuel 10% 21%

Too expensive 10% 15%

Safety concerns (flammable/combustible, explosive, contains 

chemicals, other related mentions) 10% 3%

Not familiar with it as a fuel for vehicles 6% 

Difficult to produce 5% 

Lack of availability 4% 16%

Causes engine trouble 2% 7%

Performance 7%

Don't know much about it 6%

Other 6% 6%

Don’t know 20% 8%

Table 14. Reasons Ethanol Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline

Sources: 

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=294. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=412. 

The primary concern about ethanol’s use as a replacement for gasoline was related to 

perceived negative impacts on the environment. The percentage of respondents who named 

the use of farmland or food to make ethanol increased significantly between the 2007 and 

2011 studies.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
25 

2.8 Reasons Hydrogen Is the Worst Replacement for Gasoline

Why did you say HYDROGEN would be the WORST fuel for use in 

personal vehicles when gasoline is no longer available?

February 

2007

August 

2011

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

bombs, other related mentions) 35% 39%

Not familiar with it as a fuel for vehicles 9% 

Too expensive 7% 4%

Lack of availability 4% 15%

Don't know much about it 12%

Environmental concerns 5%

Other 10% 6%

Don’t know 29% 19%

Table 15. Reasons Hydrogen Would Be the Worst Replacement for Gasoline

Sources: 

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716067, N=245. 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720349, N=183. 

Respondents most often listed safety concerns as the top reason for naming hydrogen as the 

worst replacement for gasoline in the 2007 and 2011 studies.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
26 

2.9 August 2007/2008 Hybrid and Diesel versus Gasoline Vehicles 

Assume that a HYBRID vehicle and a clean DIESEL vehicle both 

would cost $3,000 more than a comparable GASOLINE vehicle and 

both would reduce your annual fuel use by 30%. Which of the 

following would you choose for you NEXT NEW vehicle purchase? 

August 

2007

August 

2008

Gasoline 33% 22%

Diesel 12% 14%

Hybrid 52% 60%

Don’t know 4% 4%

Table 16. Comparison of Hybrid and Diesel Vehicles with Conventional Gasoline Vehicles

Sources: 

For 2007: ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716328, N=1,000. 

For 2008: ORC for NREL (2008), Study No. 717318, N=1,000. 

Why did you make this choice? (Gasoline)

Percent of

responses

Familiarity 25%

Positive gasoline mentions (readily available, just prefer gasoline, other) 20%

Negative hybrid mentions (not proven, too small, other) 19%

Cost of vehicle 15%

Low cost of gasoline 13%

Negative diesel mentions (bad smell, noisy, difficult to start, other) 10%

Other 5%

Don't know 7%

Table 17. Reasons for Selecting a Conventional Gasoline Vehicle over a Hybrid or Diesel Vehicle

Sources:

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716328, N=328. 

The majority of respondents in the 2007 and 2008 studies stated they would be willing to pay 

a $3,000 incremental cost for a more fuel-efficient diesel vehicle or HEV. The majority 

increased from 64% in 2007 to 74% in 2008. The number of respondents who stated they 

would purchase the hypothetical hybrid vehicle increased by 8% from 2007 to 2008.

In 2007 the top reason given for selecting a conventional gasoline vehicle over a more 

efficient diesel or hybrid vehicle was the respondents’ familiarity with the technology.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
27 

2.10August 2007 Hybrid and Diesel Reasoning 

Why did you make this choice? (Diesel)

Percent of

responses

Positive diesel mentions (more power, lasts longer, biodiesel, other) 47%

Cost of fuel 15%

Energy efficient 15%

Negative hybrid mentions (not proven, too small, other) 15%

Better for the environment 14%

Familiarity 10%

Other 1%

Don't know 2%

Table 18. Reasons for Selecting a Diesel Vehicle over a Hybrid or Conventional Gasoline Vehicle

Sources:

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716328, N=118. 

Why did you make this choice? (Hybrid)

Percent of

responses

Better for the environment 49%

Energy efficient 29%

Cost of gasoline too high 26%

Positive hybrid mentions 19%

Cost of vehicle (better in long run, other) 6%

Negative diesel mentions (bad smell, noisy, difficult to start, other) 5%

Other 1%

Don't know 2%

Table 19. Reasons for Selecting a Hybrid Vehicle over a Conventional Gasoline or Diesel Vehicle

Sources: 

ORC for NREL (2007), Study No. 716328, N=515. 

In 2007 respondents who chose a more fuel efficient diesel vehicle over an HEV or a 

conventional gasoline vehicle did so primarily due to generalized positive sentiments toward 

diesel fuel. The respondents who selected an HEV did so primarily because they felt the 

technology was better for the environment.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
28 

3 Ethanol Perceptions

Contents

3.1 Ethanol Perceptions Overview ........................................................................................29

3.2 September 2006 E85 Awareness and Positive E85 Opinions .........................................30

3.3 September 2006 Negative E85 Opinions ........................................................................31

3.4 September 2006 Perceived E85 Availability and FFV Awareness .................................32

3.5 September 2006 Amount Willing To Pay for E85 ..........................................................33

3.6 September 2006 Distance Willing To Drive for E85 ......................................................34

3.7 September 2006 Willingness To Pay More for E85 versus Gasoline .............................35

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
29 

3.1 Ethanol Perceptions Overview

Ethanol is a renewable fuel made from corn and other plant materials and was the focus of a 

September 2006 study that investigated awareness of and sentiments toward the alternative fuel 

E85, which is a high-level gasoline-ethanol blend containing 51%–83% ethanol. Focus on 

ethanol was high in 2006, and President George W. Bush mentioned it in the State of the Union 

Address (Washington Post 2006). Unlike some other alternative fuels and vehicles at the time, 

ethanol was becoming available in the marketplace. In 2006, 762 stations were selling E85 

across the country (DOE 2014) and 22 vehicle makes and models (DOE 2015) were available at 

the time as flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) that could operate on E85. However, E85 stations were 

located primarily in the midwestern states, and even though the technology was somewhat 

available, it was not widespread or equally available across the country. 

The study showed that general awareness and understanding of the technology was low. Only 

31% of respondents had an opinion of the fuel type. Eighty-one percent of respondents either did 

not know if E85 was available near them or knew that it was not available. Seventy-eight percent 

of respondents could not name a specific make and model that could operate on E85. 

Once respondents were given some additional information about E85, they reported a 

willingness to go out of their way to find the fuel and to pay more for the fuel. Sixty-six percent 

reported a willingness to go 2 miles or more out of their way to use E85. Fifty-seven percent 

were willing to pay an increase in fuel costs of 10% or higher in order to use the fuel. 

A part of the study informed the respondents that using E85 regularly would require them to 

purchase fuel more often because E85 has a lower energy content than gasoline. Respondents 

were told to consider the hypothetical situation in which gasoline costs $3 per gallon and they 

would need to fill up 33% more often if they operated their vehicle on E85. At $3 per gallon 

gasoline, respondents would need to pay $2.25 per gallon of E85 to pay the same amount in fuel 

costs compared to gasoline over time. The price of gasoline at the time of the study was near 

$2.50 per gallon, but the price had fallen after being close to $3 in the preceding months. The $3 

price mentioned in the question should have reflected recent customer purchase prices. Under 

this question framing, 28% of respondents reported they would be willing to pay more than the 

$2.25 break-even price, meaning they would pay more in fuel costs over time. 

Respondents were then asked more directly if they would be willing to pay more or less for E85 

compared to their current gasoline fuel costs. Under the more direct framing 68% of respondents 

would be willing to pay more in fuel costs to use E85 regularly in comparison to gasoline.

In summary, when the respondents were initially asked to consider a specific fuel price they 

would be willing to pay, only 28% voiced a willingness to pay more for E85. However, when 

respondents were asked how much more they might be willing to pay to fuel with E85, 68% 

stated they were willing to pay more to use E85. The difference in responses may show that 

respondents do not have fixed perceptions about what they would be willing to pay to use E85 in 

comparison to gasoline. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
30 

3.2 September 2006 E85 Awareness and Positive E85 Opinions

What is your opinion of E85? Would you say... Percent of Responses

It's better than gasoline 7%

It's just as good as gasoline 15%

It's not as good as gasoline 9%

Or, you do not know anything about it 69%

Table 20. September 2006 Question 1: E85 Comparison to Gasoline

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

Why do you say E85 is better than gasoline? # of Mentions

Pollutes less/Burns cleaner/Better for environment 39

Reduces dependence on foreign oil 13

Better mileage/More fuel-efficient 8 

Costs less/Cheaper 7 

Renewable/Won't run out 5 

Contains ethanol 5 

More natural 4 

Can be produced in this country 4 

Supports/Benefits farmers 4 

Conserves resources/Uses less gasoline 3 

Other 7 

Don't know 3 

Table 21. September 2006 Question 2: Reasons for Positive E85 Sentiments

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=71. 

In September 2006 respondents were primarily unaware of E85. Of the 31% who did have an 

opinion of E85, more (22%) believed E85 (a blend of up to 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), 

was as good as or better than gasoline than those that believed it was not as good as gasoline 

(9%). Respondents who stated E85 was better than gasoline did so because they believed the 

fuel was better for the environment and would reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
31 

3.3 September 2006 Negative E85 Opinions

Why do you say E85 is not as good as gasoline? # of Mentions

Lower mileage/Less fuel-efficient 40

Has less power than gasoline 13

Lower octane rating/Burns faster 10

Damages/Not good for engine 10

Costs more/Expensive 8 

Not readily available 7 

Takes too much energy/Costs too much to produce 7 

Not made for current engines 6 

Dissolves rubber gaskets/fuel lines 5 

Costs more because less fuel-efficient 4 

Not as good as gasoline/Prefer gasoline (unspecified) 3 

Hasn't been proven/Needs more testing 2 

Other 12

Don't know 10

Table 22. September 2006 Question 3: Reasons for Negative E85 Sentiments

Source:

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=87. 

In September 2006 9% of respondents stated E85 was not as good as gasoline. These 

respondents believed the fuel reduces vehicle performance compared to gasoline. The most 

often stated performance issue when operating on E85 was a reduction in vehicle fuel mileage 

compared to operating on gasoline.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
32 

3.4 September 2006 Perceived E85 Availability and FFV Awareness

Is E85 available where you drive? Would you say...

Percent of

Responses

Yes, it's easy to find 6%

Yes, but few stations sell it 13%

No, it is not sold where I drive 65%

Don't know 16%

Table 23. September 2006 Question 4: Perception of E85 Availability

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

Can you name any of the vehicles which are flexible fuel vehicles? 

Please name as many as you can.

Percent of 

Responses

Chrysler Town and Country 0%

Dodge Caravan 2%

Ford Explorer 4%

Ford Taurus 3%

GM Silverado 2%

GM Suburban 1%

Other 16%

Don't know/ None 78%

Table 24. September 2006 Question 5: E85 Vehicle Awareness

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

Note: Respondents were allowed to mention multiple vehicle makes and models; responses were 

grouped accordingly. 

In September 2006 after initial questions investigated respondent sentiments toward E85 

compared to gasoline, respondents were told “E85 is a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline 

by volume.” A large majority (81%) then stated that E85 was not available or that they did 

not know if E85 was available where they drive. Respondents were then told “Flexible fuel 

vehicles can run on any mixture of gasoline and E85. Only flexible fuel vehicles can use E85. 

There are about 6 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road in the U.S.” Twenty-two percent 

of respondents could then name a specific FFV make and model. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
33 

3.5 September 2006 Amount Willing To Pay for E85

Figure 15. September 2006 question 6: Amount willing to pay for E85

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

In September 2006 respondents were first given the information that, “As you may know, the 

following are some of the vehicles that are flexible fuel vehicles: Ford Taurus and Explorer, 

GM Silverado and Suburban, Dodge Caravan, and Chrysler Town and Country. E85 has the 

advantage of being a domestic fuel with lower greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline. 

Because there’s less energy in a gallon of E85 than gasoline, your vehicle will go only about 

75% as far on a tankful, so you will have to refuel 33% more often.” When respondents were 

asked how much they would be willing to pay for E85 if gasoline were $3 per gallon, 47% 

responded with the break-even price of $2.25 or less. Twenty-eight percent responded with a 

price higher than $2.25. Six percent responded they would never purchase the fuel and the 

remaining 19% did not know what price they might consider.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
34 

3.6 September 2006 Distance Willing To Drive for E85 

Figure 16. September 2006 question 7: Distance willing to drive for E85

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

In September 2006 respondents were asked, “If relatively few gas stations sell E85, how 

much farther would you be willing to drive one way to find a gas station that offers E85, 

assuming the price you would be willing to pay in the previous question? Would you say....” 

The survey results showed 66% of respondents would be willing to travel 2 miles or more. 

Forty-three percent would be willing to travel 4 miles or more.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
35 

3.7 September 2006 Willingness To Pay More for E85 Versus 

Gasoline 

If your vehicle could use either gasoline or E85, and E85 

were widely available, would you buy E85 consistently if 

your fuel expenditures for E85 compared with your current 

gasoline expenditures were . . . Yes No

Don't 

Know

10% or more higher 57% 33% 10%

1% to 9% higher 68% 24% 9%

The same 81% 13% 6%

1% to 9% lower 87% 8% 5%

10% or more lower 90% 6% 5%

Table 25. September 2006 Question 8: Willingness to Pay More for E85 versus Gasoline

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715369, N=1,000. 

In September 2006, when respondents were asked directly if they would be willing to pay 

more for E85, 57% of respondents reported they would be willing to pay an increase in fuel 

costs of 10% or higher to use E85 regularly. Eighty-one percent would be willing to use E85 

if total fuel costs would be the same as they currently pay for gasoline. Eight percent of 

respondents stated they would not use E85 even if the costs were lower than gasoline.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
36 

4 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments

Contents

4.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments Overview ...............................................................37

4.2 June 2006 Type of Vehicle for Next Planned Purchase and Willingness To Purchase a 

Hybrid Vehicle ................................................................................................................38

4.3 April 2006 Type of Housing ............................................................................................39

4.4 April 2006 Parking Location and Electricity Availability ..............................................40

4.5 April 2006 Awareness of PHEVs and Household Fit .....................................................41

4.6 July 2013 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Awareness and Exposure ........................................42

4.7 July 2013 PEVs versus Conventional Gasoline Vehicles ...............................................43

4.8 July 2013 Interest in Wireless Charging .........................................................................44

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
37 

4.1 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sentiments Overview

PEVs are broadly defined as vehicles that can be plugged in, are powered by an electric motor, 

and use energy stored in an onboard battery. The definition includes pure EVs that are powered 

by the electric motor only as well as plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) that can also be 

powered by an internal combustion engine fueled by petroleum fuel. PEVs most recently have 

been available to consumers in the United States since December 2010. These vehicles are 

different from HEVs, which are powered by an internal combustion engine and an electric motor 

that uses energy stored in a battery. The battery in a hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) cannot be 

plugged in; it is charged through regenerative braking and by the internal combustion engine. 

Studies in April and June 2006 were completed before PEVs were introduced. The April 2006 

study investigated how consumers park their vehicles and whether they could plug a vehicle in at 

home. Fifty-seven percent of respondents believed they would be able to plug in a hypothetical 

PHEV where they park their vehicles at home. A similar percentage of respondents (56%) 

believed a PHEV could be a good fit with their homes. A large majority of respondents (77%) 

stated that they had already heard of PHEVs even though none were currently available in the 

marketplace. 

The June 2006 study investigated consumer interest in vehicle segments and their potential 

interest in purchasing a PHEV or an HEV. The study found that only a minority (24%) of 

respondents were considering a small sedan, the segment in which the PEV technologies would 

first become available. For the PEV technologies to be more broadly accepted they would likely 

need to become available in more diverse vehicle segments. The majority of respondents (68%) 

did state a willingness to consider an HEV or a PHEV that included an incremental cost. A 

hypothetical HEV with a $2,000 incremental cost was preferred over a hypothetical PHEV with 

a $4,000 incremental cost. 

A July 2013 study investigated sentiments after the technology had been available for more than 

2 years. Forty-seven percent of respondents believed PEVs were just as good as or better than 

gasoline vehicles. Nearly half the respondents could name a PEV. A small but not insignificant 

minority (14%) claimed to have driven or ridden in a PEV. Respondents who reported having 

been in a PEV were more likely to view PEVs positively. Some respondents might have been 

confused between HEVs and PEVs, but nonetheless a percentage of respondents stated they had 

been exposed to PEVs. The study also found that technology that would allow for wireless 

charging of vehicles would increase the interest in PEVs for 50% of respondents. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
38 

4.2 June 2006 Type of Vehicle for Next Planned Purchase and 

Willingness To Purchase a Hybrid Vehicle

For your next NEW household vehicle, which ONE of the following are you 

planning to purchase? 

Percent of

Responses

A small car, smaller than the Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, or Dodge Stratus 24%

An SUV or sport utility vehicle 22%

A large car, same size or larger than the Chevy Malibu, Toyota Camry, or 

Dodge Stratus 15%

A pickup truck or standard van 12%

A minivan 9%

Don’t drive 4%

Don’t know/None of these/Will not purchase vehicle 15%

Table 26. June 2006 Question 1: Type of Vehicle for Next Planned Purchase

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715238, N=1,000. 

Assuming that gasoline prices remain in the range of $2.50 to $3 per gallon, 

for your next new vehicle purchase, would you . . .

Percent of

Responses

Pay an additional $2,000 to buy a hybrid version of your vehicle that 

improved your miles per gallon (mpg) by 40%

43%

Or, pay an additional $4,000 to buy a plug-in hybrid version that could travel 

up to 20 miles per day on its battery only, which would be recharged by the 

wall socket with electricity at the cost of less than $1 per gallon gasoline 

equivalent, and would improve your miles per gallon (mpg) by 40%

26%

Neither/Would not purchase a hybrid vehicle 27%

Don't know 5%

Table 27. June 2006 Question 2: Willingness to Purchase a Hybrid Vehicle

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715238, N=963. 

Note: Only respondents who did not respond, “Don’t drive” in question 1 were asked question 2. 

In June 2006 consumers expressed a desire to acquire larger, typically less fuel-efficient 

vehicles. A minority of respondents (24%) in 2006 were planning to purchase small cars. A 

majority of respondents (68%) were willing to consider an HEV or a PHEV option and incur 

an incremental cost ($2,000 for an HEV and $4,000 for a PHEV) if those options could attain 

a significant mpg improvement (40%) over the conventional version of the vehicle.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
39 

4.3 April 2006 Type of Housing

In which type of housing do you live? Percent of Responses

Single-family detached 67%

Multi-family unit, such as an apartment or condo 17%

Single-family attached, such as a duplex 9%

Mobile home 5%

Don't know 2%

Table 28. April 2006 Question 1: Type of Housing 

Source:

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715168, N=1,000. 

In April 2006 the majority of households (76%) reported living in single-family homes. The 

expectation is that a single-family home could more easily allow for a specific location where 

a PEV could be plugged in.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
40 

4.4 April 2006 Parking Location and Electricity Availability

Which of these situations BEST describes where the vehicle you put the most 

miles on in a year is located when it is parked at night?

Percent of

Responses

In a driveway 36%

In an attached garage 26%

In an unattached garage 9%

On the street, in front of or behind your residence 9%

In a parking lot for the use of residents of your housing complex 8%

In a carport 5%

Or, somewhere else 1%

Do not own a vehicle 5%

Don't know 1%

Table 29. April 2006 Question 2A: Locations Where Vehicles are Parked

Source:

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715168, N=507. 

Based on where you can park this vehicle, could you consistently park it near 

an existing electrical outlet so that on MOST days it could be plugged in?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 57%

No 42%

Don't know 2%

Table 30. April 2006 Question 3A: Availability of Electrical Outlet Where Vehicle is Parked

Source:

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715168, N=480. 

Note: Only respondents who did not answer “Do not own a vehicle” to question 2A were asked 

question 3A. 

In April 2006 the majority of households (76%) reported parking their cars in garages, 

carports, or driveways that could represent unique parking places for vehicles owned by the 

household. Fifty-seven percent of households reported parking their vehicles near available

electrical outlets.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
41 

4.5 April 2006 Awareness of PHEVs and Household Fit

The hybrid vehicles for sale today get all their energy from gasoline and electric 

batteries. Another type of hybrid can get its energy from both gasoline and from 

plugging into an electrical outlet. These are called plug-in hybrid vehicles. Have 

you ever heard of this kind of hybrid before?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 77%

No 23%

Don't know 1%

Table 31. April 2006 Question 2B: Awareness of PHEVs

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715168, N=493. 

Do you think that a vehicle that could take energy from a standard electric plug 

and from a gasoline pump would be a good idea for your household?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 56%

No 32%

Don't know 12%

Table 32. April 2006 question 3B: Opinion of PHEVs

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2006), Study No. 715168, N=493. 

In April 2006 77% of respondents reported having previously heard of PHEVs. Fifty-six 

percent of respondents agreed that PHEVs could be a good idea for their households. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
42 

4.6 July 2013 Plug-in Electric Vehicle Awareness and Exposure

Can you name any PLUG-IN electric vehicles? Please 

name as many as you can.

Percent of

Responses

Chevrolet Volt 23%

Toyota Prius Plug-in 20%

Nissan Leaf 13%

Tesla Model S 6%

Ford Fusion Energi 3%

Ford C-MAX Energi 1%

Other 12%

Don't know/none 53%

Table 33. July 2013 Question 1: Naming PEVs 

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

Have you ever ridden in or driven a plug-in electric 

vehicle? Would you say...

Percent of 

Responses

Have ridden in a PEV 11%

Have driven a PEV 6%

Not ridden or driven 85%

Don't know 1%

Table 34. July 2013 Question 2: Exposure to PEVs

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

In July 2013 47% of respondents were able to name a specific PEV make and model. The 

Chevrolet Volt was most often named. The second most common model named was the 

Toyota Prius, which was also in the marketplace at the time of the study as an HEV that could 

not charge its battery by being plugged in. If any of the respondents thought of the HEV

version of the Toyota Prius as a PEV, the results overstate the percentage of the population 

who could name a PEV. In total, 14% of the respondents reported having sat in and/or driven 

a PEV.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
43 

4.7 July 2013 PEVs versus Conventional Gasoline Vehicles

What is your opinion of plug-in electric 

vehicles? Would you say they are...

Percent of

Responses

Better than gas vehicles 16%

Just as good as gas vehicles 32%

Not as good as gas vehicles 32%

Don't know 21%

Table 35. July 2013 Question 3: Opinion of PEVs

 

Figure 17. July 2013 Question 3: PEV Exposure and PEV Opinions 

Source:

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

In July 2013 47% of respondents believed PEVs were just as good as or better than 

conventional gasoline vehicles. Roughly one-third of the respondents thought that PEVs were 

not as good as conventional gasoline vehicles. The 14% of respondents who had earlier 

reported having been in PEVs were classified as PEV exposed (136 respondents). The 85% of 

respondents who had not been in PEVs were classified as PEV unexposed (864 respondents). 

The PEV exposed percentage of the respondents was more likely to have an opinion of PEVs, 

more likely to view PEVs as just as good as or better than gasoline vehicles, and were slightly 

less likely to view PEVs as being not as good as gasoline vehicles. The results of this 

comparison do not confirm that the exposure impacted the respondents’ views, because no 

information is available about the respondents’ perceptions before they were in PEVs.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
44 

4.8 July 2013 Interest in Wireless Charging 

Technical advances are making it possible to charge plug-in electric vehicles 

without physically plugging them in. If plug-in electric vehicles available for 

purchase had this capability, would you be more interested in purchasing a 

plug-in electric vehicle?

Percent of

Responses

Yes 50%

No 45%

Don't know 4%

Table 36. July 2013 Question 4: Interest in Wireless Charging

Source:

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=1,000. 

Figure 18. July 2013 question 5: Willingness to pay more for PEVs

Source: 

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722269/74460, N=461. 

Note: Incremental cost values were provided by 46% of respondents. 

The July 2013 study captured sentiments toward an advanced technology that would allow 

PEVs to charge wirelessly. Overall, 50% of the population stated the wireless charging 

capability would increase their interest in PEVs. Nine percent of the respondents stated they 

would be more interested in PEVs after having stated that PEVs were not as good as gasoline 

vehicles earlier in question 3. Forty-six percent of respondents were willing to pay an 

incremental cost for a vehicle that is capable of wireless charging. The respondents reported a 

wide range of incremental costs they were willing to incur. Forty-eight percent of those who 

reported an incremental cost would be willing to pay just $1,000 or less.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
45 

5 Willingness to Pay for Efficiency

Contents

5.1 Willingness To Pay for Efficiency Overview .................................................................46

5.2 June 2011 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for Increased Fuel Efficiency ...................47

5.3 June 2011 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy ...........48

5.4 April 2012 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for More Efficient Vehicle 

(Revised Amounts) ..........................................................................................................49

5.5 April 2012 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy 

(Revised Amounts) ..........................................................................................................50

5.6 January 2013 Likelihood of Purchasing a New versus a Used Vehicle ..........................51

5.7 January 2013 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy 

(New versus Used Vehicle Purchasers) ...........................................................................52

5.8 Implied Payback Periods for Willingness To Pay More for Higher Fuel Economy .......53

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
46 

5.1 Willingness To Pay for Efficiency Overview

Highly efficient advanced vehicle technologies often carry significant incremental costs over the 

conventional vehicles available in the market. These incremental upfront costs can be offset by 

the fuel cost savings the driver will experience over the vehicle’s lifetime. A series of questions 

was designed to help understand the extent to which consumers are willing to incur the upfront 

vehicle cost if they will experience fuel cost savings.

June 2011 and April 2012 studies first asked respondents to provide the additional amount they 

would be willing to spend on a vehicle that would save them a specific predefined amount in 

annual fuel costs. The studies then followed up by asking respondents to provide the annual fuel 

cost savings they would require in order to pay a specified higher upfront cost for the vehicle. 

Under the first framing, respondents who provided a value were willing to spend an average of 

$1,200 and $2,300 for promised annual savings of $400 and $600, respectively. Respondents 

who provided a value were willing to incur a specified additional cost of $1,200 or $1,900 if they 

could achieve annual fuel cost savings on average of $750 and $1,500, respectively. 

A similar January 2013 study asked respondents to provide an annual fuel cost savings for a 

specified upfront increased vehicle cost. The study included a question that classified 46% of 

respondents as new car purchasers and 49% as used car purchasers. The study did not show a 

difference between new and used car purchasers when considering willingness to incur upfront 

costs. Of respondents who provided a value, both cohorts were willing to spend a specified 

additional cost of $1,500 if they could achieve annual fuel cost savings on average of $1,100. 

The questions in this section were designed to force the respondents to calculate an implicit 

payback period while determining what upfront costs they were willing to pay or what fuel cost 

savings they would require. Undiscounted payback periods calculated by dividing the upfront 

incremental costs by the annual fuel cost savings show that the period would need to be 1 to 1.5 

years for 50% of respondents to state a willingness to incur the upfront cost. 

These studies show considerable variability across the population about a willingness to incur an 

upfront cost to save annual fuel costs over a vehicle’s life. Although a percentage of the 

population is willing to wait longer to recoup upfront costs, a majority of respondents require a 

relatively quick payback to be willing to spend more upfront. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
47 

5.2 June 2011 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for Increased Fuel 

Efficiency

Figure 19. June 2011 question 1: Incremental cost willing to pay for increased fuel efficiency

Source:

ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=506. 

Note: Only respondents who provided a specific value were included in mean and standard 

deviation calculations. 

In June 2011 respondents were asked, “Consider the next vehicle you plan to purchase or 

lease. Suppose an optional engine were available, just as good in all respects as the engine 

you are considering buying, but more fuel efficient. If the engine would save $400 in fuel 

each year how much EXTRA would you be willing to spend for the vehicle?” 

Respondents were willing to spend an extra $1,200 on average for the vehicle that would save 

them $400 annually in fuel costs.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
48 

5.3 June 2011 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher 

Fuel Economy

Figure 20. June 2011 question 2: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency

Source:

ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=494. 

Note: Only respondents who provided a specific value were included in mean and standard 

deviation calculations. 

In June 2011 respondents were asked, “Consider the next vehicle you plan to purchase or 

lease. Suppose an optional engine were available, just as good in all respects as the engine 

you are considering buying, but more fuel efficient. If the engine cost $1,200 more, how 

much would it have to save you EACH YEAR in fuel costs before you would be willing to 

buy it?” Respondents on average would require a $750 annual fuel savings to be willing to 

purchase a more efficient vehicle that would be $1,200 more expensive.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
49 

5.4 April 2012 Incremental Cost Willing To Pay for More Efficient 

Vehicle (Revised Amounts)

Figure 21. April 2012 question 1: Incremental cost willing to pay for increased fuel efficiency

Source:

ORC for NREL (2012), Study No. 721159, N=506. 

Note: Only respondents who provided a specific value were included in mean and standard 

deviation calculations. 

In April 2012 respondents were asked, “Think about the next vehicle you plan to buy or lease. 

Suppose an optional engine were available, just as good in every way as the engine you are 

planning to buy, but with better fuel economy. If the optional engine would save $600 in fuel 

each year how much EXTRA would you be willing to pay for the vehicle?” 

Respondents were willing to spend an extra $2,300 on average for a vehicle that would save 

them $600 annually.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
50 

5.5 April 2012 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher 

Fuel Economy (Revised Amounts)

Figure 22. April 2012 question 2: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency

Source:

ORC for NREL (2012), Study No. 721159, N=494. 

Note: Only respondents who provided a specific value were included in mean and standard 

deviation calculations. 

In April 2012 respondents were asked, “Think about the next vehicle you plan to buy or lease. 

Suppose an optional engine were available, just as good in every way as the engine you are 

planning to buy, but with better fuel economy. If the engine cost $1,900 more, how much 

would it have to save you EACH YEAR in fuel costs before you would be willing to buy it?” 

Respondents on average would require nearly $1,500 in annual fuel savings to be willing to 

purchase a more efficient vehicle that would be $1,900 more expensive.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
51 

5.6 January 2013 Likelihood of Purchasing a New versus a Used 

Vehicle

When you purchase or lease your next vehicle, how 

likely is it to be a brand new vehicle? Would you say...

Percent of 

Responses

Definitely-you will always buy a new vehicle 15%

Probably-you will usually buy a new vehicle 16%

Maybe-you will sometimes buy a new vehicle 15%

Not very likely-you will rarely buy a new vehicle 23%

Not at all likely-you will never buy a new vehicle 26%

Do not expect to buy or lease a vehicle 4%

Don’t know/No response 0%

Table 37. January 2013 Question 1: Likelihood of Purchasing a New versus a Used Vehicle

Source:

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722038/74403, N=1,000. 

In January 2013 respondents were classified as new car purchasers or used car purchasers to 

determine if their new or used car preferences may correlate with their willingness to pay 

more for higher vehicle fuel economy. Respondents were classified as new car purchasers if 

they answered that they “definitely,” “probably,” or “maybe” would buy new vehicles. 

Respondents who said they were “not very likely” or “not at all likely” to buy new vehicles 

were classified as used car purchasers. Following this classification, 46% of respondents were

new car purchasers, and 49% were used car purchasers.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
52 

5.7 January 2013 Fuel Cost Savings Required To Pay More for Higher 

Fuel Economy (New versus Used Vehicle Purchasers)

 

Figure 23. January 2013: Fuel cost savings required to pay more for higher efficiency

Source:

ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722038/74403, N=1,000. 

Notes: Respondents who answered, “Do not expect to buy or lease a vehicle” or “Don’t know/no 

response” in question 1 were excluded from question 2. Only respondents who provided a 

specific value were included in mean and standard deviation calculations.

In January 2013 respondents were asked, “Suppose you are buying your next (used)/(new) 

vehicle and assume that there are two optional engines on the same vehicle that offer the same 

performance and reliability. One costs $1,500 more but gets much better fuel economy. What 

is the minimum dollar amount the better fuel economy engine would have to SAVE in gas 

each YEAR for you to pay the additional $1,500?” 

New car purchasers and used car purchasers would, on average, require a $1,100 annual fuel 

cost savings to incur an upfront incremental cost of $1,500 for purchasing a more efficient 

vehicle.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
53 

5.8 Implied Payback Periods for Willingness To Pay More for Higher 

Fuel Economy

Figure 24. Compiled results: Implied undiscounted payback periods

Sources: 

For 2011: ORC for NREL (2011), Study No. 720229, N=1,000. 

For 2012: ORC for NREL (2012), Study No. 721159, N=1,000. 

For 2013: ORC for NREL (2013), Study No. 722038/74403, N=1,000. 

The results of each question investigating willingness to pay an upfront cost for a more fuelefficient vehicle can be converted to an implied undiscounted payback period for each 

respondent by dividing the upfront incremental cost (provided in the question or in the 

response) by the annual fuel cost savings (also provided either in the question or in the 

response). The compilation of these studies shows that roughly 25% of respondents report a 

willingness to pay an upfront cost if the undiscounted payback period is 3 years or longer. 

The undiscounted payback period would need to be 1 to 1.5 years for 50% of respondents to 

report a willingness to incur the upfront cost.

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.
54 

References 

DOE. 2008. “2008 Ratings Changes.” U.S. Department of Energy, accessed August 7, 

2015: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml#. 

DOE. 2011. “Learn about the New Label.” U.S. Department of Energy, accessed August 7, 

2015: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt1. 

DOE. 2014. “U.S. Alternative Fueling Stations by Type.” U.S. Department of Energy, accessed 

August 7, 2015: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10332. 

DOE. 2015. “Light-Duty AFV, HEV, and Diesel Model Offerings, by Fuel Type.” U.S. 

Department of Energy, accessed August 7, 2015: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10303. 

Kane, M.P., and Wasi, N. 2013. The Structure of Consumer Taste Heterogeneity in Revealed vs. 

Stated Preference Data. Oxford, U.K.: University of 

Oxford. www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/economics/papers/2013/SP_RP_data%20-%20Final.pdf. 

Kubik, M. (2006). Consumer Views on Transportation and Energy (Third Edition). NREL/TP620-39047. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Accessed September 24, 

2014: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39047.pdf. 

Washington Post. 2006. “President Bush’s State of the Union Address.” Washington Post, 

accessed August 7, 2015: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/01/31/AR2006013101468.html. 

This report is available at no cost from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) at www.nrel.gov/publications.