Describing Current and Potential Marke

for ts

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

March 1996

DOE/EIA-0604

Energy Information

Administration

? AFV

?

Gas

FUEL
DOE/EIA-0604

Distribution Category UC-950

Describing Current and Potential Markets

for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

March 1996

Energy Information Administration

Office of Energy Markets and End Use

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20585

This report was prepared by the Energy Information Administration, the independent analytical agency within the

Department of Energy. The information contained herein should not be construed as advocating or reflecting any policy

position of the Department of Energy or any other organization.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

ii Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

If you have any data or report-related requirements or suggestions for any of the other EIA consumption

surveys, please contact the appropriate survey manager directly or use the address below.

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS): Martha Johnson, Survey Manager, at

202-586-1135 (Internet: MJOHNSON@EIA.DOE.GOV).

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS): Mark A. Schipper, Survey Manager, at 202-

586-1136 (Internet: MSCHIPPE@EIA.DOE.GOV).

Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS): Wendel Thompson, Survey Manager, at 202-586-

1119 (Internet: WTHOMPSO@EIA.DOE.GOV).

Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey (RTECS): Ron Lambrecht, Survey

Manager, at 202-586-4962 (Internet: RLAMBREC@EIA.DOE.GOV).

You are encouraged to provide your comments to the survey managers. Your feedback is important to us.

EI-63, Mail Stop 2G-090

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

FAX: 202-586-0018

Contacts

General information about Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on energy consumption can be obtained from

Lynda T. Carlson, Director of the Energy End Use and Integrated Statistics Division (EEUISD) (202-586-1112).

General information regarding the contents of this publication can be obtained from Dwight K. French, Chief of the

Transportation and Industrial Branch (202-586-1126, Internet DFRENCH@EIA.DOE.GOV). Jennifer Reichert (202-

586-5736, Internet JREICHER@EIA.DOE.GOV) is the contact for the “Fleets of Alternative Fuel Providers” section

of this report. Christy Hall (202-586-1068, Internet CHALL@EIA.DOE.GOV) is the contact for the “Composition of

the U.S. Vehicle Stock” and “Consumer Vehicle Preferences” sections of this report. The FAX number for all EEUISD

personnel is 202-586-0018.

The questionnaires administered in the alternative fuel provider fleet surveys and the consumer preference study have

not been included in this report. For information regarding the alternative fuel provider fleet questionnaire, contact

Jennifer Reichert. Contact Christy Hall for information concerning the consumer preference questionnaire. 

EIA maintains a file transfer protocol (ftp) site on the Internet (ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov) to allow the general public to access

electronically the tables found in this report and in many of EIA's statistical reports. In addition to the tables presented

in this report, there are additional tables from the alternative fuel provider fleet surveys available. For the Electric Utility

Fleet Survey and the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey, State-level data tables are available on the ftp site. All data

tables can be found in the pub/consumption directory within the ftp site. EIA also maintains a Home Page

(http://www.eia.doe.gov) on the Internet.

Special thanks are given to Ken Brown, Margaret Natof, Sylvia Norris, Linda Bromley, Mike Griffey, and Paula Weir

of EIA for their patience and cooperation in the preparation and fielding of the alternative fuel provider fleet surveys.

Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Stanley Presser of the University of Maryland and his students enrolled in the Joint

Program in Survey Methodology for conducting the Consumer Preference Survey. Thanks are also provided to Margaret

Beckham for editorial assistance.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles iii

Contents

Page

Section 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Energy Policy Act of 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Energy Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3

Section 2. Composition of the U.S. Vehicle Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3

2.2. Total Vehicle Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

Federal Highway Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

R.L. Polk and Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.3 Residential Vehicle Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.4. Nonresidential Vehicle Stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

Vehicles in Fleets of 10 or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

The Atlanta Survey and Vehicles in Fleets of Less than 10 ................................ 2-11

All Types of Nonresidential Vehicles ................................................. 2-11

2.5. Unaccounted-for Vehicles ......................................................... 2-13

Exclusion of Vehicles from the RTECS ............................................... 2-13

Inconsistent Definition of Fleets ..................................................... 2-13

Inconsistent Coverage of Government Vehicles ......................................... 2-14

Used Car Lots and Auctions ........................................................ 2-14

2.6. Conclusion ..................................................................... 2-15

Section 3. Fleets of Alternative Fuel Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.2 Survey Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

Propane Provider Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

Electric Utility Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5

3.3 Fleet Size and Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Propane Provider Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

Electric Utility Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.4 Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans ............................................ 3-11

Propane Provider Fleet Survey ...................................................... 3-11

Electric Utility Fleet Survey ........................................................ 3-11

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey ................................................... 3-11

3.5 Fleet Operating Characteristics ...................................................... 3-13

Fleet Vehicle Fueling Facilities ..................................................... 3-13

Fleet Vehicle Usage by Employees .................................................. 3-14

Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles ................................................... 3-14

Fleet Vehicle Fuel Storage Capacity .................................................. 3-15

Fleet Vehicle Fuel Consumption .................................................... 3-16

Fleet Vehicle Miles Traveled ....................................................... 3-17

Fleet Vehicle Operating Costs ...................................................... 3-18

3.6 Detailed Tables .................................................................. 3-21
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

iv Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

3.7 Data Quality .................................................................... 3-49

Propane Provider Fleet Survey ...................................................... 3-49

Electric Utility Fleet Survey ........................................................ 3-50

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey ................................................... 3-50

Section 4. Consumer Vehicle Preferences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Design of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3

Organization of this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-7

4.2 Consumer Characteristics, Awareness, and Concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Consumer Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

Consumer Awareness ............................................................. 4-10

Consumer Concern ............................................................... 4-11

4.3 Consumer Receptiveness to Behavioral Changes and Price Differentials ..................... 4-13

Single Vehicle Limitations ......................................................... 4-13

Conclusions .................................................................... 4-18

4.4 Detailed Tables .................................................................. 4-19

4.5 Relative Standard Error Tables ...................................................... 4-53

4.6 Data Quality .................................................................... 4-87

Sample Selection ................................................................ 4-87

Response Rate .................................................................. 4-87

Sample Weights ................................................................. 4-88

Nonsampling and Sampling Error ................................................... 4-88

Section 5. U.S. Census Region Map and Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 U.S. Census Region Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3

5.2 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles v

Tables Page

2.2.1 FHWA Vehicle Registration Estimates, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5

2.2.2 R.L. Polk and FHWA Vehicle Registration Estimates, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6

2.3.1 Number of Residential Vehicles by Vehicle Type and Survey Year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7

2.4.1 Derivation of Estimates of Entire Nonresidential Vehicle Stock, 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9

3.3.1 Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles by Provider Category, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.6.1 Fleet Vehicles Operated by Propane Providers as of December 31, 1993 ......................... 3-22

3.6.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.6.1 .................................................. 3-23

3.6.3. Alternative-Fuel Vehicles in Propane Provider Fleets by Source, 1993 .......................... 3-24

3.6.4. Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.6.3 .................................................. 3-24

3.6.5. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans - 1994 ........................... 3-25

3.6.6. Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.6.5 .................................................. 3-25

3.6.7. “New” Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 1994 ........................... 3-26

3.6.8. Relative Standard Errors for Table 2.6.7 .................................................. 3-27

3.6.9. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Fueling Locations, 1993 ..................................... 3-28

3.6.10. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Usage for Vehicles Assigned to Employees, 1993 ................. 3-29

3.6.11. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles, 1993 ................................... 3-30

3.6.12. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Costs, 1993 ............................................... 3-31

3.6.13. Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Maintenance Costs Relative to Conventional-Fuel Vehicles in 

Propane Provider Fleets, 1993 .......................................................... 3-32

3.6.14. Fuel Storage Capacity in Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 ............................... 3-33

3.6.15. Annual Consumption by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 .... 3-34

3.6.16. Annual Miles Travelled by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 . . 3-35

3.6.17. Fleet Vehicles Operated by Electric Utilities as of December 31, 1993 .......................... 3-36

3.6.18. 1994 Electric Utility Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans ............................... 3-37

3.6.19. “New” Electric Utility Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 1994 .............................. 3-38

3.6.20. Fleet Vehicles Operated by Natural Gas Suppliers as of December 31, 1993 ...................... 3-39

3.6.21. Alternative-Fuel Fleet Vehicles in Natural Gas Supplier Fleets by Source, 1993 ................... 3-40

3.6.22. 1994 Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans .......................... 3-41

3.6.23. “New” Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 1994 ......................... 3-42

3.6.24. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Fueling Locations, 1993 .................................. 3-43

3.6.25. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Usage for Vehicles Assigned to Employees, 1993 .............. 3-44

3.6.26. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Daily Miles Traveled Range, 1993 ......................... 3-45

3.6.27. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles, 1993 ................................ 3-46

3.6.28. Annual Consumption per Vehicle by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Natural Gas Supplier Fleet

Vehicles, 1993 ...................................................................... 3-47

4.3.1 Overview of Vehicle Preference by Modified Vehicle Limitations, 1994 ......................... 4-13

4.3.2. Vehicle Preference Regarding Loss of One-Half Trunk Space, by Size of Current

Vehicle Trunk, 1994 ................................................................. 4-14

4.3.3. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994 ........ 4-15

4.3.4. Willingness to Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel by Frequency of

Usual Gas Purchase, 1994 ............................................................. 4-16

4.3.5. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994 ........ 4-16

4.3.6. Willingness to Refuel Twice as Often by Frequency of Usual Gas Purchase, 1994 ................. 4-17

4.3.7. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994 ........ 4-17

4.3.8. Overview of Vehicle Preference by Combinations of Modified Vehicle Limitations for 

Depleted Populations, 1994 ............................................................ 4-18

4.4.1 Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern for the Environment, 1994 ....................... 4-20

4.4.2 Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994 .......................................... 4-22

4.4.3 Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a

Regular Vehicle, 1994 ................................................................ 4-24

4.4.4 Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle

and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 ......................................... 4-26
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

vi Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Tables (Continued) Page

4.4.5 Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle

and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ......................................... 4-28

4.4.6 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-30

4.4.7 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 ....................... 4-32

4.4.8 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ........................ 4-34

4.4.9 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often

as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-36

4.4.10 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often

as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 ........................ 4-38

4.4.11 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often

as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ......................... 4-40

4.4.12 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-42

4.4.13 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often 

as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-44

4.4.14 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often 

as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-46

4.4.15 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often 

as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ........................ 4-48

4.4.16 Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often 

as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ............................................................ 4-50

4.5.1 Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern 

for the Environment, 1994 ............................................................. 4-54

4.5.2 Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994 ................... 4-56

4.5.3 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half 

the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ......................................... 4-58

4.5.4 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half 

the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 ..... 4-60

4.5.5 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half 

the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ...... 4-62

4.5.6 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, 1994 ....................................... 4-64

4.5.7 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes 

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 . . . 4-66

4.5.8 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 .... 4-68

4.5.9 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel 

the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 .............................. 4-70
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles vii

Tables (Continued) Page

4.5.10 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel 

the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle 

Costs $1,000 More, 1994 ............................................................. 4-72

4.5.11 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel 

the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle 

Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ............................................................. 4-74

4.5.12 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes 

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half 

the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ......................................... 4-76

4.5.13 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel 

the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle 

Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ................................. 4-78

4.5.14 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes 

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Must be 

Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ....................................... 4-80

4.5.15 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes 

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled 

Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 ........... 4-82

4.5.16 Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes 

Out of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled 

Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 ........................................................... 4-84

4.6.1. Disposition of Selected Telephone Numbers .............................................. 4-88

Figures

Page

 1.1 Percent Growth in Alternative and Traditional Fuels Consumption Relative to 1992 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2

3.1.1 Alternative Fuel Provider Fleets by Fuel, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3

3.3.1 Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles by Fuel, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7

3.3.2 Electric Utility Fleet Vehicles by Size Class, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8

3.3.3 Electric Utility Fleet Alternative-Fuel Vehicles by Fuel, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.3.4 Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicles by Size Class, 1993 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9

3.3.5 Natural Gas Supplier Alternative-Fuel Vehicles by Technology and Source, 1993 ................... 3-10

3.5.1 Types of Fueling Facilities Used by Natural Gas Supplier Fleets, 1993 ........................... 3-13

3.5.2 Months-Based Replacement Cycles for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 ..................... 3-14

3.5.3 Miles-Based Replacement Cycles for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 ...................... 3-15

3.5.4 Annual Propane Consumption per Vehicle by Vehicle Size Class for Propane Provider

Fleet Vehicles, 1993 ................................................................... 3-16

3.5.5 Percent of Natural Gas Supplier CNG and Propane Fleet Vehicles and Consumption

by Vehicle Type, 1993 ................................................................. 3-17

3.5.6 Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Vehicle on Gasoline, Diesel, and Propane by Vehicle Technology

for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993 ................................................. 3-17

3.5.7 Daily Miles Traveled by Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicles, 1993 .............................. 3-18

3.5.8 Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Acquisition and Conversion Costs, 1993 .......................... 3-19

4.1.1 Flow Chart of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-6

4.2.1 Household Annual Income by Census Region, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

viii Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figures (Continued) Page

4.2.2 Number of Vehicles by Census Region, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-9

4.2.3 Household Annual Income by Number of Vehicles, 1994 ...................................... 4-10

4.2.4 Level of Concern for the Environment by Census Region, 1994 ................................. 4-11

4.3.1 Consumers Willing to Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel by Census Region, 1994 ........... 4-15
Section 1.

Introduction
 Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Review 1994, July 1995, Tables 5.1 and 5.11. 1

 EIA, Annual Energy Review 1994, July 1995, Table 5.12b. 2

 EIA, Annual Energy Review 1994, July 1995, Table 2.15. 3

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

1-2 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Introduction

Motor vehicles are an integral part of the American way of life. Private motor vehicles give us personal freedom and

nearly unfettered mobility; and trucks, both large and small, bring goods to even the smallest towns throughout the

country. Today, record numbers of vehicles are on the road and are being driven record numbers of miles. 

Our reliance on motor vehicles has major implications for both international trade policy and environmental policy.

Dependence on foreign oil reached its highest level in 17 years in 1994, with net imports amounting to 45 percent of

consumption. Motor gasoline represented the greatest consumption of all oil products, 43 percent of all petroleum

products supplied in 1994. Both foreign imports of petroleum and consumption of motor gasoline are on the rise; and 1

consequently, the United States remains as vulnerable as ever to oil embargoes abroad.

Concern that highway-vehicle combustion of gasoline produces by-products that could lead to global warming has

heightened awareness of the so-called “greenhouse gases.” Motor vehicles are a major source of greenhouse gases, and

the trends of rising numbers of motor vehicles and miles driven could lead to more harmful emissions that may ultimately

affect the world’s climate. One approach to curtailing such emissions is to use, instead of gasoline, alternative fuels:

liquefied petroleum gas (usually propane), compressed natural gas, electricity, or alcohol fuels.

In addition to the concerns over greenhouse-gas emissions, there is also increasing concern over pollutants which are

harmful to human health. The major examples of these pollutants are atmospheric ozone and carbon monoxide. Ozone

is not only directly harmful to humans, acting as a powerful irritant to the human respiratory system, but also indirectly

because it absorbs ultraviolet light, which can cause skin cancer. Carbon monoxide is also harmful to human health by

reducing the flow of oxygen to the body’s organs and tissues. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorized the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). These standards were

set in order to address air pollution and designate standards to mediate carbon monoxide and ozone levels. 

Energy Policy Act of 1992

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT), which was adopted after the Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-1991, was the first

new law to emphasize strengthened energy security and decreased reliance on foreign oil since the oil shortages of the

1970's. The EPACT emphasized increasing the number of alternative-fuel vehicles (AFV’s) by mandating that Federal,

State, and alternative fuel provider fleets incrementally increase the proportion of AFV’s in their vehicle fleets over the

next few years. It was concluded that targeting fleets was the most practical approach to increasing the number of AFV’s

on the road. One major drawback of alternative fuel use is the lack of a refueling infrastructure. Generally, commercial

fleets are centrally refueled, so establishing a widespread refueling infrastructure would not be necessary. 

Energy Security

The United States obtains 53 percent of its net imports of petroleum products from the Organization of Petroleum

Exporting Countries (OPEC), mostly from Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Canada is another major source of net imports,

but is not a member of OPEC. The transportation sector consumes 65 percent of the total petroleum products supplied,

and, by far, the largest share of product supplied to the transportation sector is motor gasoline.2

Growth in gasoline consumption has occurred in spite of significant advances in fuel economy. In 1973, the year of the

Arab oil embargo, average miles per gallon for passenger vehicles was 13.3; in 1992, the average miles per gallon was

21.6. Automobile manufacturers instituted several engineering refinements to improve fuel economy, such as the use 3

of lighter materials to decrease weight, aerodynamic body design to reduce drag, and the near universal use of radial tires
1993 1995

0

20

40

60

80

100

Traditional Fuels

Alternative Fuels

Source: Energy Information Administration, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels, 

1993, DOE/EIA-0585(93), January 1995.

1.2

27.7

4.4

61.4

 EIA, Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1993, January 1995, p. 18. 4

 The EIA has conducted fleet surveys in Atlanta, GA and Denver, CO, which are two of the designated Clean Cities. Currently, there are a total 5

of 41 Clean Cities--39 additional Clean Cities are as follows: Philadelphia, PA; Wilmington, DE; Las Vegas, NV; Washington, DC; Boston, MA;

Austin, TX; Florida Gold Coast; Chicago, IL; Albuquerque, NM; Wisconsin - SE Area; Colorado Springs, CO; Long Beach, CA; Lancaster, CA;

Salt Lake City, UT; White Plains, NY; Baltimore, MD; State of West Virginia; Louisville, KY; Rogue Valley, OR; San Francisco, CA; Sacramento,

CA; South Bay (San Jose), CA; Oakland, CA; San Joaquin Valley, CA; Western New York; Portland, OR; St. Louis, MO; Waterbury, CT;

Norwalk, CT; Norwich, CT; New London, CT; Peoria, IL; Kansas - Southwest Area; Central New York; Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX; Honolulu, HI;

Missoula, MT; New Haven, CT; and Central Arkansas.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 1-3

Figure 1.1. Percent Growth in Alternative and Traditional

Fuels Consumption Relative to 1992

instead of bias-ply tires. These refinements were encouraged by the Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)

standards, which set fuel efficiency standards for different types of vehicles. However, the number of motor vehicles

on the road and the number of miles driven have continued to grow, and motor gasoline consumption has continued to

increase. The energy security provisions of EPACT represent a new approach to decreasing U.S. vulnerability to oil

price shocks abroad and call for practical approaches to promoting domestic energy sources. 

The EPACT set a national goal to replace 30 percent of the petroleum content of fuels for light-duty vehicles with

nonpetroleum-derived fuels by the year 2010. To help meet this goal, the legislation also provided the possibility for

future requirements for private fleets to acquire AFV’s. Tax incentives for the purchase of AFV’s and the development

of retail service stations are also a requirement in the EPACT, as is encouragement to States to develop their own

programs. 

The goals set by the EPACT are far from

being met. Alternative fuels’ share of total

vehicle fuel consumption remains trivial

(approximately 0.3 percent). There was,

however, about 28 percent growth in

alternative fuel consumption between 1992

and 1993 and 61 percent growth between

1992 and 1995. Growth in consumption of

traditional fuels was not as substantial--1.2

percent between 1992 and 1993 and 4.4

percent between 1992 and 1995 (Figure

1). The Energy Information 4

Administration (EIA) is monitoring the

consumption of alternative fuels, the

numbers of fleet vehicles, and the overall

motor vehicle market. It is also taking a

particularly detailed look at fleets in the

Department of Energy (DOE)-designated

“Clean Cities.” These cities have DOE- 5

accepted approaches for promoting the penetration of AFV’s and development of the associated infrastructure needed

for AFV acceptance. They are located in climatically and geographically diverse parts of the country.

Reducing Greenhouse-Gas Emissions

Reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is another priority of the EPACT. Transportation, through the burning of petroleum

products, accounts for about 30 percent of all anthropogenic greenhouse gases in the United States. Greenhouse gases

are gases that absorb heat or prevent its release into the stratosphere, thus warming the Earth (the “greenhouse effect”);

or that reflect sunlight, preventing its entry into the troposphere and striking the Earth’s surface, thus cooling the Earth.

The major gases--carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide--are found in combustion of hydrocarbons like motor

gasoline and diesel fuel. Other gases, including carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and nonmethane volatile organic

compounds, are not greenhouse gases, however, they contribute indirectly to the greenhouse effect and are found in

vehicle emissions.
 EIA, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1987-1994, October 1995, pp. 12, 25, 45, 63-65. 6

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

1-4 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

In the United States, the transportation sector contributes:

! about one-third of carbon dioxide emissions

! about one-third of nitrous oxide emissions

! less than 1 percent of anthropogenic methane emissions

! 77 percent of carbon monoxide emissions

! 45 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions

! more than one-third of nonmethane volatile organic compounds6

Alternative-fuel vehicles have the potential to reduce the emissions of many greenhouse gases, but they present a number

of drawbacks for the consumer--including shorter driving ranges, less cargo space (because of extra fuel tanks or

batteries), and fewer refueling outlets. Only electricity has a suitable fueling infrastructure in place; however, in many

respects, electricity is the alternative fuel most in need of technological improvements in order to be a practical

transportation fuel. 

Fuel distributors are reluctant to build the necessary infrastructures for AFV’s until these vehicles are more prevalent

on the road; and, at the same time, automobile manufacturers fear the market for AFV’s will be very limited until the

refueling infrastructure is in place. The EPACT purchase mandates are designed to increase the market for AFV’s, but

the purchase mandates apply to entities—government and commercial fleets—that are least likely to use retail fuel

outlets. Fleet vehicles are much more likely to refuel in a centralized location, often owned by the fleet operator.

In addition to the aforementioned requirements set forth by the EPACT, the Act directed the EIA to establish several new

data collection programs. In particular, Section 407 of EPACT required information useful to those entering the markets

related to AFV's and the associated infrastructure. As with any emerging market, the core information includes the

makeup of the market in which new products would have to compete and the nature of the products that new technology

might replace. The text box below gives overviews of the EIA programs required by EPACT Sections 407 and 503.

The box first summarizes EIA’s data acquisition programs required by Section 407, and then addresses those programs

designed to comply with EPACT Section 503, which relates to AFV’s in particular rather than to the vehicle market in

general. Section 503 required EIA to identify AFV’s already in use, AFV’s likely to be in use in the following year, and

AFV’s being made available to the market each year.

This report describes current and potential markets for AFV’s. It begins by assessing the total vehicle stock. Then it

focuses on the current use of AFV’s in alternative fuel provider fleets and the potential for use of AFV’s in U.S.

households. These topics are covered in the following three sections:

Section 2. Composition of the U.S. Vehicle Stock

Section 407 required information about the total U.S. vehicle market, and the EIA determined that the composition of

the U.S. vehicle stock should be assessed. Using existing data sources and the new data collection systems designed

to comply with EPACT, a speculative attempt was made to detect where and in what capacity vehicles are being operated

within the United States. Results of this effort are presented in this section.

Section 3. Fleets of Alternative Fuel Providers

In addition to the various data collection systems, EPACT implemented programs designed to encourage governments

and private companies to purchase AFV’s for their fleets. These programs require that a certain percentage of new

vehicle acquisitions be AFV’s. These purchase mandates, which go into effect at different times for the various fleet

subpopulations, increase incrementally over several years. The fleets operated by the Federal government were the first

to be affected, with purchase requirements going into effect in 1993. Beginning with model year 1997 (approximately

September 1996), alternative fuel providers--sellers and distributors of propane, electricity, and natural gas--may fall

under AFV purchase mandates.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 1-5

The EIA established three fleet-level surveys to collect data concerning fleets and fleet vehicles operated by alternative

fuel providers. The results of the three surveys: the Propane Provider Fleet Survey, the Electric Utility Fleet Survey,

and the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey are presented in this section. The EIA surveyed only providers of propane,

natural gas, and electricity because there were existing EIA databases that made the population of those providers easily

accessible. At the time the surveys were conducted, there was no database in existence for easy access to the methanol

and ethanol providers, and it was still uncertain (due to pending Rules) whether the oil providers/refiners would be

covered under the EPACT as alternative fuel providers.

Section 4. Consumer Vehicle Preferences

Section 407 of the EPACT also called for data on consumer preferences relating to vehicle operation to assess consumer

acceptance of AFV’s. To comply, EIA obtained data from a national consumer vehicle preference survey that was

designed and conducted by a practicum class in the Joint Program in Survey Methodology sponsored by the University

of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and Westat, Inc. This survey collected data concerning consumer vehicle

preferences and attitudes toward AFV’s and the possible limitations commonly associated with them. Analysis of these

data is presented in this section.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

1-6 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Energy Policy Act 

Section 407 Data Acquisition Program

C Section 407 (a) and (a)(1) direct the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to collect data that would be useful to

marketers of alternative-fuel vehicles, and to identify “the number and types of motor-vehicle trips made daily and miles

driven per trip.” EIA has responded to these requirements with surveys that collected data on the “Stock of Motor

Vehicles in Fleets.” These included national surveys of electric, natural gas, and propane fuel provider fleets; and

surveys of private-company and municipal fleets in Atlanta (Profile of Motor-Vehicle Fleets in Atlanta 1994, November

1995 (DOE/EIA-0601)), and Denver. For data from the survey in Denver, refer to EIA’s home page on the Internet at

http://www.eia.doe.gov or contact Leigh Carleton (202-586-1132); Contact Jennifer Reichert (202-586-5736) for details

on the fuel provider fleet surveys.

C Section 407 (a)(2) calls for “Projections of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles.” These forecasts are being conducted as part of

EIA’s basic National Energy Modeling System. The forecasts are driven by a consumer vehicle choice model and by

estimates of the sales impact of EPACT and the California LEV program. Please refer to The Supplement to the Annual

Energy Outlook (February 1995, DOE/EIA-0554(95)) or contact David Chien (202-586-3994).

C Section 407 (a)(3) covers “Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Safety Data” on alternative fuels and alternative-fuel

vehicles. No specific projects are currently underway. Some related data may be developed as part of the EPACT

Section 503 Program. Contact Fred Mayes (202-426-1166) for details.

C Section 407 (a)(4) calls for data on “Consumer Preferences.” An EIA analysis and summary of the results of a

national telephone survey of consumer vehicle preferences and attitudes toward alternative-fuel vehicles was conducted

in response to this requirement. These data are not available by fuel type. The survey was conducted by students in a

joint survey methodology program of the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and Westat, Inc. Contact

Christy Hall (202-586-1068) for details.

Section 503-Replacement Fuel Demand Estimates and Supply Information

C Section 503 directs the Energy Information Administration to estimate annually for the following calendar year: (1) the

number of each type of alternative-fuel vehicle (AFV) likely to be in use in the United States, (2) the probable geographic

distribution of the vehicles, (3) the amount and distribution of each type of replacement fuel, and (4) the greenhouse-gas

emissions likely to result from replacement fuel use. Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 (DOE/EIA0585(94)) is the second in a series of annual reports designed to provide such information. In June 1994, EIA provided

background information on alternative and replacement fuels and the use of AFV's and alternative transportation fuels in

the publication Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels: An Overview (DOE/EIA-0585/O).

C Section 503 also requires that suppliers of AFV’s report annually, to the Department of Energy, the number and type of

AFV’s “made available” in the previous calendar year and those that the supplier plans to make available in the following

calendar year. In 1995, the EIA conducted the first survey of AFV suppliers using Form EIA-886, "Alternative Fuel Vehicle

Suppliers' Annual Report." Survey respondents include vehicle manufacturers and companies that perform conversions.

Preliminary survey results are presented in Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994. Contact Fred Mayes

(202-426-1166) or Mary Joyce (202-426-1168) for details of these data programs.
Section 2

Composition of the U.S.

Vehicle Stock
 The expected number of nonresidential vehicles is the difference between the 1991 total reported number of registered vehicles and the estimate of 1

residential vehicles as reported by EIA’s 1991 Residential Transportation Energy Consumption Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-3

2.1. Introduction

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) directed the EIA to establish a data collection program of use to those seeking to

enter the market for alternative-fuel vehicles and their fueling facilities. Two critical areas of understanding concerning these

emerging markets are the total U. S. vehicle market in which alternative-fuel vehicles would have to compete and the nature

of the vehicles that they might replace. Therefore, EIA determined to assess the composition of the total U.S. vehicle stock.

Many vehicle data sources exist, each of which has collected data for distinct groups with specific needs. Together, these

data sources provide information that is somewhat limited and often not comparable. Measuring and dissecting the entire

U.S. vehicle stock based upon analysis of the existing collections of vehicle data are complicated by the following:

C The data sources that produce definitive estimates on the vehicle stock (those data sources that use State vehicle

registration data as a base for estimation) include residential vehicles in their total count, and they do not distinguish

the residential vehicles from the nonresidential.

C Different data sources are generally prepared for very different purposes. Consequently, each source has its own

scope, target population, relative data of interest, and methodology. 

C The data sources are of varied degrees of completeness and/or have different reference periods.

C Many data sources use additional, contributing information from other sources; unclear relationships and circular

logic often arise.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of the U.S. vehicle stock is that there are nearly fourteen to sixteen million nonresidential

vehicles for which no data source can account. The estimate of the expected number of nonresidential vehicles is much

larger than the number that can be identified in the major nonresidential vehicle markets. In other words, there exists a gap 1

between how many nonresidential vehicles there should be and how many nonresidential vehicles have been accounted for.

This study provides some plausible, but not documented, conjectures regarding the discrepancy. Additionally, some data

from local areas have been extrapolated to derive estimates that represent the entire United States. Because of the

uncertainty involved with some data sources and the theoretically unsupported nature of inferring by projecting or extending

estimated values without sound statistical basis, this study should be viewed as a speculative attempt to quantify the U.S.

vehicle stock.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-5

2.2. Total Vehicle Stock

To dissect the U.S. vehicle stock, the total number of registered vehicles must be ascertained. Two important sources for

the number of vehicles in the total vehicle stock are the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the R.L. Polk

Company. Data year 1991 is used for stock counts and subsequent discussion in this analysis. It is the latest year for which

detailed composition data are available for residential vehicles, which account for a large majority of the vehicle stock. 

Federal Highway Administration

The FHWA collects U.S. vehicle registration data on a State-by-State basis. By collecting State-by-State data, the FHWA

faces three general problems. First, obtaining identical forms of data for all the States is not possible because the registration

practices for vehicles, and the way in which the vehicle registrations are reported to the FHWA, differ greatly among the

States. For example, in some States, cars and light trucks have separate registrations; in others, light trucks are allowed to

be registered as cars. Therefore, the FHWA truck category includes light trucks only to the extent that they can be identified

and separated from automobiles. One would expect that this registration and reporting practice would contribute to an

overcount of the number of automobiles and an undercount of light duty trucks. Second, the annual vehicle registration dates

vary among States. For example: two States use the calendar year for registering all vehicle types; nine States use the

calendar year for registering trucks only; fifteen States register only their automobiles on a staggered basis; and twenty-one

States register all of their vehicles on a staggered basis. (The staggered system permits a distribution of the registration

renewal workload throughout all the months of the year.) To complicate matters further, the FHWA data include all vehicles

registered any time throughout the calendar year. Therefore, the data include vehicles retired during the year and may

double-count vehicles preregistered or registered twice in different or the same States. Conceivably, a vehicle could have

been retired for two years before it would be eliminated from FHWA counts. Third, although the detail of motor-vehicle

data collected by States has improved in recent years, sometimes the FHWA must supplement the data supplied by the States

with information obtained from other sources. For example, many States report only new registrations; in which case, R.

L. Polk's attrition rate of 10 percent is used to adjust for vehicle retirement. 

The Highway Statistics 1991 publication gives the following estimates:

Table 2.2.1. FHWA Vehicle Registration Estimates, 1991

(Thousand Vehicles)

Motor Vehicles

Vehicle Ownership Automobiles Buses Tractors Total Trailers Motorcycles

Trucks Trailers

and Truck and SemiTotal ....................... 142,956 631 44,785 188,372 16,467 4,177

Publicly Owned

 Total ...................... 1,179 357 1,771 188,372 192 37

 Federal (civilian only) . . . . . . . . . 96 5 269 370 4 (*)

 State, County, and Municipal . . . 1,082 352 1,502 2,937 188 37

Private and Commercial ...... 141,777 275 43,014 185,065 16,275 4,140

 (*)Rounds to zero.

 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics 1991.
 Some States are “Privacy States” and do not release these data. Information provided by any data source for these States are based on other data 2

sources and are estimated.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

2-6 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

R.L. Polk and Company

R.L. Polk and Company, like the FHWA, reports estimates of the automobile and truck population. Although both FHWA

and R.L. Polk data use the individual States' registration data, the sources' estimates are different (Table 2.2.2). Some of

the more important differences are:

C Unlike the FHWA, whose data are reported by the States by major vehicle classes (i.e., automobiles, buses, trucks,

and motorcycles), R.L. Polk obtains more detailed State registration data. Included in these data are vehicle 2

identification numbers (VIN). Decoded, the VIN allows R.L. Polk to more precisely identify the vehicle type. 

C R.L. Polk data include only those vehicles registered as of July 1 of the given year; thereby excluding vehicles

retired, registered, or re-registered during the last half of the year. In this way, much, but not all, erroneous

counting and double counting can be avoided. 

C Since 1980, the R.L. Polk data have included passenger vans in the truck category. Passenger vans could be

classified as either automobiles or trucks depending on the individual State’s practice in the FHWA data.

Table 2.2.2. R.L. Polk and FHWA Vehicle Registration Estimates, 1991

(Thousand Vehicles)

Vehicle Type FHWA R.L. Polk (FHWA - R.L. Polk)

Difference

Total ................... 187,741 181,438 6,303

 Automobiles ............ 142,956 123,268 19,688

 Trucks ................ 44,785 58,179 -13,394

 Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 14.

R.L. Polk estimates that in 1991, there were approximately 181.4 million registered vehicles, roughly 123.3 million

automobiles and 58.2 million trucks. Because R.L. Polk’s point-in-time registration count does a better job than FHWA

of avoiding duplicate registrations, the remainder of the discussion will use the 1991 Polk estimates as the starting point for

assessing the makeup of the U.S. vehicle stock. The next issue is how to describe the composition of the stock. 
 For more information regarding the RTECS sample design, estimation methodologies, and data quality, see Energy Information Administration, 3

Household Vehicles Energy Consumption 1991, Appendices A, B, and C.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-7

2.3. Residential Vehicle Stock

The large majority of vehicles in the stock are associated with households and are used in conjunction with everyday

household activities. The EIA collects data on these vehicles using the Residential Transportation Energy Consumption

Survey (RTECS). The RTECS provides information on the vehicle stock and its energy use from data gathered directly from

the end user, the household. The RTECS is a national multistage probability sample survey conducted triennially. In order

for a vehicle to be included in the RTECS, one of two criteria must be met. Vehicles must be either (1) owned or used by

household members on a regular basis for personal transportation or (2) company vehicles, not owned by the household but

kept at home and regularly available to household members.

The RTECS was conducted in 1983, 1985, 1988, and 1991. It is a consistent, reliable information base about the residential

vehicle stock. Table 2.3.1 provides RTECS estimates for total number of residential vehicles by vehicle type and survey

year. 3

Table 2.3.1. Number of Residential Vehicles by Vehicle Type and Survey Year

(Million Vehicles)

Vehicle Type 1983 RTECS 1985 RTECS 1988 RTECS 1991 RTECS

Total Vehicles .......... 129.3 137.3 147.5 151.2

 Passenger Car ......... 101.7 106.6 109.3 108.3

 Minivan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A N/A 2.2 5.1

 Sport-Utility Vehicle . . . . . N/A 3.7 4.8 7.3

 Large Van . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A 4.7 4.7 3.9

 Pickup Truck .......... 19.8 21.2 25.9 25.9

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.8 1.1 .7 Q

 N/A = Not applicable.

 Q = Data withheld because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1991 Residential Transportation

Energy Consumption Surveys.

There is a difference of 30.2 million vehicles between the 1991 R.L. Polk estimate of vehicle registrations and the 1991

RTECS residential stock estimate. To account for these vehicles, it is necessary to examine a much more diverse and

difficult-to-assess population, the stock of nonresidential vehicles. 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-9

Government Vehicles

According to the General Services Administration’s FY 92 Federal Motor Vehicle Fleet Report, the Federal

Government owned about 553 thousand vehicles and leased about 15 thousand additional vehicles as of September

30, 1991. Overall, nearly 568 thousand vehicles of the 30.2 million (about 1.9 percent) are used by the Federal

Government.

The Federal Highway Administration’s Highway Statistics, 1991 indicates that there were approximately 2.9 million

vehicles owned by State, county, and municipal governments. These vehicles account for approximately 9.6 percent

of the 30.2 million nonresidential vehicles.

2.4. Nonresidential Vehicle Stock

Unfortunately, no comprehensive nationwide data source for the nonresidential vehicle stock is currently available.

Subtracting the 1991 RTECS residential estimates from R.L. Polk registration data gives a target for the number of

vehicles yet to be accounted for (Table 2.4.1). The sections to follow discuss several data sources that provide estimates

for two subsets of the nonresidential vehicle stock, fleets of 10 or more vehicles and fleets of less than 10 vehicles.

Table 2.4.1. Derivation of Estimates of Entire Nonresidential Vehicle Stock, 1991

(Million Vehicles)

Motor Vehicles

Data Source Autos Trucks Total

Vehicle Registration Estimate Source

 R.L. Polk .................................. 123.3 58.2 181.4

 RTECS ................................... 108.3 42.9 151.2

 Nonresidential Vehicles ..................... 15.0 15.3 30.2

 Note: To be comparable to the R.L. Polk data, the RTECS truck category includes all vehicle types except passenger cars, including vehicles

classified as “other.”

Vehicles in Fleets of 10 or More

Many studies have explored this sector of the nonresidential fleet, each having a different focus and scope. Data have been

collected for distinct groups with specific needs and interests. Because of this, estimates of the number of vehicles in fleets

of 10 or more vary by as much as four million. Three data sources available are the Bobit Publishing Company, Dwights

Energydata, and the Natural Gas Vehicle Fleet Market Study. The major difficulty in comparing these sources’ estimates

is determining whether and to what extent government vehicles are included.
 Bobit Publishing Company, Automotive Fleet, 1993 Fact Book. 4

 Vehicles in Class IV - VIII are not included. It is unclear how many vehicles in fleets of 10 or more these classes account for. 5

 Bobit Publishing Company, Automotive Fleet, 1993 Fact Book. 6

 The Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition, Natural Gas Vehicle Fleet Market Study. 7

 The degree to which government vehicles were covered is unclear; thus, the estimate of 12.3 million vehicles in fleets of 10 or more may be low. 8

 Bobit Publishing Company, Automotive Fleet, 1993 Fact Book. 9

 The Electric Utility Fleet Survey and the Natural Gas Supplier Survey was conducted only if there were 10 or more vehicles in the fleet. 10

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

2-10 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

The Bobit Publishing Company publishes the Automotive Fleet which is a car and truck fleet and leasing management

magazine. Bobit estimates that as of January 1, 1993 there were approximately 8.2 million non-government vehicles in fleets

of 10 or more vehicles. The data include only those vehicles whose gross vehicle weight (GVW) is 19,500 lbs or less. 4 5

This estimate combined with the estimate of government vehicles results in approximately 11.7 million vehicles in fleets

of 10 or more.

Dwights Energydata provides commercial information products, proprietary market research and analysis, and management

consulting services. One product offered is the National Fleet Vehicle Database. This database provides commercial fleet

data by county. According to Dwights Energydata (as cited in Bobit’s Automotive Fleet 1993 Fact Book), there were

approximately 124 thousand fleets of 10 or more vehicles operating in the U.S. in 1993. These fleets accounted for about

10.5 million vehicles. It is unclear from this source to what extent government vehicles and large trucks are included. 6

Because of this uncertainty, Dwights estimates will serve as the lower bound for vehicles found in fleets of 10 or more

vehicles. 

In December of 1991, Easton Consultants, Inc., conducted a study, Natural Gas Vehicle Fleet Market Study, on behalf of

the American Gas Association and the Natural Gas Vehicle Coalition (NGVC). This study involved secondary research, 7

consultant field research, and a structured telephone survey of 500 fleet managers. Government vehicles were included in

this study, as were all large trucks (vehicle classes I - VIII). Among the findings was that approximately 12.3 million

vehicles were in fleets of 10 or more. This estimate will be used as the upper bound for the number of vehicles in fleets of 8

10 or more.

Overall, it is reasonable to postulate that there are approximately 10.5 to 12.3 million vehicles in fleets of 10 or more,

roughly 34.8 to 40.7 percent of the total nonresidential vehicle stock. The next two section discuss two subgroups of vehicles

which operate in fleets of 10 or more vehicles. 

Utility Fleet Vehicles

Bobit estimates that as of January 1,1993 approximately 1.1 million vehicles were operating in utility fleets of 10 or more.9

This would account for approximately 8.9 to 10.5 percent of the vehicles in fleets of 10 or more and for about 3.6 percent

of the entire nonresidential vehicle stock.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT) Sections 407(a) and 407(a1) directed EIA to collect data useful to marketers of

alternative-fuel vehicles. EIA established three surveys in 1993 designed to collect information regarding the fleets and fleet

vehicles operated by alternative fuel providers. The surveys targeted providers of propane, electricity, and natural gas, all

of which are alternative fuels according to EPACT definitions. These surveys are discussed in more detail in later chapters

of this report. At the end of 1993, propane providers in the U.S. operated approximately 82,000 fleet vehicles, electric

utilities operated nearly 202,000 fleet vehicles, and natural gas suppliers operated just over 138,000 fleet vehicles. Overall, 10

these three utility fleets account for about 422 thousand vehicles (about 3.4 to 4.0 percent) in fleets of 10 or more, or around

1.4 percent of the 30.2 million nonresidential vehicles.
 Bobit Publishing Company, Automotive Fleet, 1993 Fact Book. 11

 For more information regarding this survey, see Energy Information Administration, Profile of Motor-Vehicle Fleets in Atlanta 1994: Assessing 12

the Market for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles, DOE/EIA-0601(94).

 The 13 counties defined by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 to be the nonattainment area. The 13 counties immediately surround 13

Atlanta and roughly correspond to the Atlanta Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) with the exclusion of five counties on the outer edge of the MSA.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-11

Taxis and Rental Vehicles

Bobit also estimates that as of January 1, 1993 there were 140 thousand taxis in operation and 1.75 million rental vehicles.11

Together, these types of vehicles account for around 1.89 million vehicles (15.4 to 18 percent) of the vehicles in fleets or

10 or more vehicles, or approximately 6.3 percent of the total nonresidential vehicle stock. 

The Atlanta Survey and Vehicles in Fleets of Less than 10

Also as part of the EPACT Section 407 data program, EIA conducted a motor-vehicle fleet survey in Atlanta. The findings

from the 1994 Survey of Motor-Vehicle Fleets in Atlanta can serve as another potential data source. The study found that 12

approximately 83 thousand vehicles in private (non-government) business fleets of six or more were operating in the Atlanta

nonattainment area. In 1990, about 1 percent of the U.S. population resided in the Atlanta nonattainment area. If we 13

assume that the Atlanta nonattainment area population and the number of private business fleet vehicles operating in Atlanta

are related to the U.S. population and the U.S. number of vehicles in private business fleets similarly (1 percent of the total),

then the resulting national estimate is about 8.3 million vehicles. Because the Atlanta study included fleets with six to nine

vehicles, it is somewhat surprising that this estimate is not much larger than Bobit’s non-government estimate of 8.2 million

vehicles in fleets of 10 or more. However, extrapolation from a single area to the Nation is a risky, theoretically unjustified

exercise, so a discrepancy of this size is not surprising. 

The Atlanta results suggest that there are few fleets with six to nine vehicles. The results of Atlanta benchmark data

collection reinforce this assumption. Before the actual survey was conducted, benchmark data were collected as a screening

mechanism for the main fleet survey. Respondents were asked if the business had a fleet, and, if so, how many vehicles were

in the fleet. Nearly 33 thousand vehicles were in fleets of one to five, while only 9 thousand were found in fleets of six to

nine. If the estimate of 42 thousand vehicles in Atlanta fleets of one to nine is about 1 percent of the total U.S. number of

private business vehicles in fleets with less than 10 vehicles, small fleets account for approximately 4.2 million more

nonresidential vehicles (about 14 percent of the nonresidential vehicle stock).

All Types of Nonresidential Vehicles

Adding all the vehicles from each group (fleets of 10 or more vehicles and fleets of less than 10 vehicles) results in a total

of 14.7 to 16.5 million vehicles, or around 48.7 to 54.6 percent of the nonresidential vehicle stock. This leaves about 45.4

to 51.3 percent of the nonresidential vehicle stock, or 13.7 to 15.5 million vehicles, unaccounted for. This gap represents

about 7.6 to 8.5 percent of the U.S. vehicle stock. 
 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 14

1993.

 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 15

1992.

 Shonka, D.B., Characteristics of Automotive Fleets in the United States: 1966-1977, ORNL/TM-6449, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak 16

Ridge, Tennessee, 1978.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-13

2.5. Unaccounted-for Vehicles

One possible reason for the large number of unaccounted-for vehicles is that the estimate of the total vehicle stock is too

high. R.L. Polk collects registration data at a particular day of the year; thus, vehicles registered one place at one time of

the year and another place at another time of the year are counted only once. However, it is possible for a vehicle to be

registered at two different places simultaneously. If this were the case, then the vehicle would be double counted. For

example, after a car is sold, it must be registered; but it may still exist in State registration files under the previous owner.

In some States, it is at the time of registration renewal that the State is notified of a change in vehicle ownership. The same

could be true if the vehicle was retired from circulation. Nearly 11 million vehicles are retired from use every year, and 14

many more are either traded in or sold privately. If any significant proportion of them shows up as duplicate registrations

or registrations of nonexistent vehicles at the time R.L. Polk collects registration data, then the Polk estimate for the total

vehicle stock could be too high by several million vehicles. It is possible that the opposite situation could arise: recent

registrations of new vehicles that are in use but, due to lag time in data entry, are not included in the R.L. Polk counts.

However, the organized registration process should get vehicles into the Polk counts much faster than the less organized deregistration process gets them out.

It is to be expected that some of the 13.7 to 15.5 million vehicles that are not accounted for by any data source are, in fact,

available, properly registered vehicles. In other words, these vehicles might be the vehicles that are beyond the scope in the

existing surveys and studies. Other potential sources of missing vehicles are discussed below.

Exclusion of Vehicles from the RTECS

Some vehicles are out of scope for the RTECS and would not be picked up in any of the nonresidential data sources. For

example, vehicles associated with students living in group quarters at colleges would not be in the RTECS scope. The total

higher education enrollment in 1990 was 13.7 million, of which 7.8 million were full-time. The National Center for 15

Education Statistics estimates that in 1991, approximately 15 percent of full-time undergraduates lived on campus, 56

percent lived off campus and not with parents, and 28 percent lived with parents. Corresponding percents for graduate

students were 8, 84, and 8. The students living on campus and some part of the students living off campus but not with

parents would not be covered in the RTECS. Many of these students would have vehicles, but the number of vehicles

probably would not exceed one million.

Inconsistent Definition of Fleets

Within the fleet industry, the definition of a fleet is not consistent. Much of the inconsistency of the definition of a fleet lies

in the distinction between what number of vehicles constitutes a fleet, whether the vehicles are purchased in bulk, and

whether they are operated under one central control. The most typical number used to distinguish a fleet is ten or more

vehicles, thus missing all the smaller fleets, which very well may amount to several million. Statistics published by Bobit

Publishing Company on fleet vehicles are, for example, based on vehicles operated in groups of ten or more. However, this

cutoff for the number of vehicles says nothing about whether the vehicles were purchased in bulk of 10 or more. In contrast,

R.L. Polk and Company classifies a vehicle as a member of a fleet only if it is sold to a customer who buys ten or more

vehicles within a 2-year period. Conceivably, many fleet vehicles could be missed because of the data source’s definition 16

of what vehicles constitute a fleet.
 The average number of 65 vehicles per used car lot was obtained by randomly calling nine Washington used car establishments and asking how 17

many used vehicles were currently on their lot.

 Source: Automotive Fleet, 1993 Fact Book. 18

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

2-14 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Inconsistent Coverage of Government Vehicles

Generally, data sources are prepared for very different purposes. Consequently, each source has its own target population,

scope, and relative data of interest. Because Dwights Energydata, the Bobit Publishing Company, and the Natural Gas

Vehicle Coalition are all most interested in the private, commercial business sector of the U.S., it is conceivable that some

portion of government vehicles would not be fully covered in their estimates of the number of vehicles in fleets of 10 or more.

It is also reasonable to assume that many government vehicles belong to fleets of less than 10 vehicles. These vehicles are

not included in the estimate of vehicles in fleets because government vehicles were out of scope in the 1994 Survey of MotorVehicle Fleets in Atlanta. Together, Federal, State, and local government vehicles account for about 3.5 million vehicles,

or 11.6 percent, of the total nonresidential vehicle stock. Any significant noncoverage of these vehicles would result in a

substantially lower estimate of the total number of nonresidential fleet vehicles than are actually in operation and a higher

estimate of those vehicles yet to be accounted for. For example, if 2.5 million government vehicles were not covered by the

data sources used to estimate the upper and lower limit for the number of nonresidential vehicles in fleets, then only 11.2

to 13.0 million vehicles, or 37.1 to 43.0 percent, would remain unaccounted for. Because of the high level of uncertainty

associated with these data sources’ coverage of government vehicles, no estimates of the number of government vehicles

potentially excluded from these sources are provided.

Used Car Lots and Auctions

Another possible data gap that might encompass a substantial number of vehicles is the used car industry. Vehicles traded

in or sold among used car dealers would likely have an ongoing registration for some time under the previous owner and thus

be counted in the total vehicle stock. No data source would identify these vehicles, however, because no survey is currently

conducted to obtain this information. This could account for a great many vehicles. For example, in the Washington, DC,

metropolitan area telephone book, there are 194 used car establishments listed. If the average number of cars per lot is about

65, then in the DC area alone there are 12,610 vehicles included in the total vehicle stock, yet they are not counted in the

residential or nonresidential stock. The Washington metropolitan area contains about 1.7 percent of the total U.S. 17

population. If we assume that population is related similarly to distribution of used car lots, then we could account for about

742,000 vehicles.

Used vehicles are also marketed through the auction industry. Although some auctions are open to the public, for the most

part, auctions are a means of selling and acquiring used vehicles among vehicle dealers. It is estimated that around seven

million vehicles moved through auctions in 1991. Including the time it would take a dealer to transport a vehicle to an 18

auction, the time it would take for the vehicle to be sold, and the time it would take the buyer to transport the vehicle to its

destination, a vehicle could be out of use, and even away from a used car lot, for as much as three weeks. Apportioning the

seven million vehicles using a turnaround time of 21 days, approximately 403,000 more vehicles could be accounted for as

being at auto auctions at any given time throughout the year.
 U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1993. 19

 Energy Information Administration, Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992. 20

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 2-15

2.6. Conclusion

The existing residential and nonresidential vehicle data sources, which are of some reliability, can account for 165.9 to 167.7

million vehicles, or 91.5 to 92.4 percent of the total U.S. vehicle stock, leaving 13.7 to 15.5 million vehicles, or 7.6 to 8.5

percent, unaccounted for. The speculative explanations discussed in section 2.5 include perhaps as many as one million

student vehicles and perhaps slightly over one million vehicles out of active use in auctions or used car lots. These values

leave 11.7 to 13.5 million vehicles still unaccounted for, with no obvious explanation other than uncertainty in fleet estimates

and uncertainty about duplicate registrations in the R.L. Polk files.

In a sense, the extrapolated number of vehicles in used car lots and auctions seems surprisingly small. The vacancy rate for

residential households is about 8 percent, and the vacancy rate for commercial floorspace is roughly comparable. Yet, 19 20

the suggested level of vehicles in used car lots and auto auctions, potential surrogate “vacancy” measure for vehicles, is much

less than 1 percent of the total U.S. vehicle stock. Perhaps this is due to the shorter lifetimes of most vehicles and quicker

turnaround to new ownership, compared with the lifetimes and ownership changes of residential and commercial buildings.

The persistent gap of several million vehicles is most likely due to some combination of double counting of registrations and

overlooking places where vehicles could be found. Perhaps one day there will be a means to assess this section of the vehicle

stock directly; but without more complete and consistent data sources all that can be done, for now, is educated speculation.
Section 3.

Fleets of Alternative

Fuel Providers
422

284

78

41 18 1

All Fuels Gasoline Diesel Propane CNG Other

Fuel

0

100

200

300

400

500

Thousand Vehicles

 Sources: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey; Form 

EIA-861, Schedule VII, Electric Utility Fleet Survey; and Form EIA-176, Schedule B, Natural Gas 

Supplier Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-3

Figure 3.1.1. Alternative Fuel Provider Fleets by Fuel, 1993

3.1. Introduction

The EPACT established vehicle purchase mandates for particular subsets of the U.S. vehicle fleet population. These

mandates, which go into effect at different times for various fleet subpopulations, required that an incremental

percentage of new vehicle purchases must be alternative-fuel vehicles (AFV’s). The Federal government fleets were the

first to be affected, with their purchase requirements going into effect with model year 1993. Beginning with model year

1996, providers of alternative fuels also will fall under AFV purchase mandates.

 EIA established three surveys to collect information about the fleets operated by providers of propane, natural gas, and

electricity. The reason for focusing on alternative-fuel providers is that they would likely be important early users of

AFV’s because they would derive publicity and public relations benefits from using their energy source as a vehicle fuel.

The EIA surveyed only providers of propane, natural gas, and electricity because there were existing EIA databases that

made the population of those providers easily accessible. At the time the surveys were conducted, there was no database

in existence for easy access to the methanol and ethanol providers, and it was still uncertain (due to pending Rules)

whether the oil providers/refiners would be covered under the EPACT as alternative fuel providers.

Survey data reveal that alternative-fuel providers are making use of alternative-fuel vehicles. The three classes of

providers covered in this report operate a total of 422,127 vehicles in their fleets. Of those, approximately 60,000

vehicles (14 percent) are fueled by alternative fuels, with propane being the most common (Figure 3.1.1). Detailed tables

display the complete survey results, and summary descriptions of survey methodologies and results are presented for each

type of provider. Throughout this section of the report the term “multifuel” is used to refer to all AFV’s that are capable

of operating on more than one fuel type (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, dual-fuel, and hybrid).

Highlights

Propane Provider Fleet Survey

C The top 35 propane providers (as measured by sales volume) are responsible for nearly two-thirds of the propane

deliveries in the United States, but they operate only about one-third of all propane provider fleet vehicles. The

smaller companies operate approximately 70 percent of the total vehicle stock. However, the top 35 companies are

much more likely to operate AFV’s. Overall, about 80 percent of the top 35 companies’ fleet vehicles use propane,

while slightly less than one-third of those of the smaller companies use propane.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-4 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

C On average, costs to acquire conventional-fuel vehicles were 42 percent higher than the costs of acquiring AFV’s;

however, acquisition costs varied widely over vehicles types. Respondents also reported lower maintenance costs

for propane vehicles than for conventional-fuel vehicles, regardless of vehicle type. 

Electric Utility Fleet Survey

C Although one may expect that electric utilities would use electric vehicles in order to promote their energy source

as a transportation fuel, only 237 electric vehicles (4.2 percent of all AFV’s) were reported in the Electric Utility Fleet

Survey. One could speculate that this is probably because many electric utilities are opting to operate the more

economical compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles until electric vehicle technology develops further. Also, some

of the utilities reporting data on the fleet survey are combined utilities, which provide natural gas as well as electricity.

These utilities may be choosing to operate CNG vehicles and still are able to promote their energy source.

C After CNG, methanol/ethanol was the most common alternative fuel in electric utility fleets, followed by propane,

and then electricity. 

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey

C Natural gas suppliers appear to be farther along than electric utilities in integrating AFV’s into their fleets. Survey

data indicate that nearly 12 percent of the fleet vehicles operated by natural gas suppliers are AFV’s. This proportion

is substantially higher than the 3 percent found in the electric utility fleets, but much lower than the 46 percent

penetration realized by the propane providers.

C Vehicles fueled by CNG were predominantly multifuel vehicles--vehicles capable of using more than one type of fuel.

Most AFV’s were converted from the use of conventional fuels to the use of alternative fuels.
 “Top 35 U.S. LPG Retailers,” LP-Gas Magazine, June 1993, pg. 22. 1

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-5

3.2. Survey Operations

Propane Provider Fleet Survey

The Propane Provider Fleet Survey collected information from a sample of the approximately 7,800 propane providers

in the United States. The top 35 propane providers in the United States (as determined by 1992 sales volumes ) were 1

asked to provide detailed information on fleet characteristics and operating practices. These providers, who in 1992

accounted for two-thirds of total residential and commercial propane sales, were mailed a questionnaire that collected

the following information:

• Distribution of fleet vehicles among size classes, fuel types, and AFV engine technologies (i.e., multifuel vs.

dedicated)

• Fleet vehicle retirements, acquisitions, and conversions planned for 1994

• Source of AFV’s (original equipment manufacturer vs. conversion)

• Fleet vehicle fueling practices for conventional-fuel and alternative-fuel vehicles

• Fuel consumption

• Vehicle miles traveled

• Employee usage of fleet vehicles

• Average length of service of fleet vehicles before retirement (in months and miles)

• Fuel storage capacity in fleet vehicles

• Vehicle acquisition costs

• Vehicle conversion costs (for converted AFV’s)

• Comparison of maintenance costs between AFV’s and conventional-fuel vehicles.

A stratified random sample of 100 of the remaining smaller providers was selected to provide basic information about

their vehicle stock and 1994 acquisition plans by means of a brief telephone interview that collected only the first three

items in the above list. These smaller providers were separated into four strata corresponding to the four Census regions.

The sample was then drawn using proportional allocation.

Electric Utility Fleet Survey

Approximately 1,000 electric utilities provided information on their fleets and fleet vehicles in response to the Electric

Utility Fleet Survey. This survey was conducted as a supplement to the EIA survey “Annual Electric Utility Report”

(Form EIA-861), a census survey of about 3,200 electric utilities in the United States. Only utilities operating a fleet

of 10 vehicles or more were required to provide information on the fleet portion of the survey. The respondents to the

Electric Utility Fleet Survey were asked (via a mail questionnaire) to report the following:

• Distribution of fleet vehicles among size classes, fuel types, and AFV engine technologies (i.e., multifuel vs.

dedicated) and

• Fleet vehicle retirements, acquisitions, and conversions planned for 1994.

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey

As with the Electric Utility Fleet Survey, the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey was conducted as a supplement to an

existing EIA survey, “Annual Report of Natural and Supplemental Gas Supply and Disposition” (Form EIA-176). This

form is a census survey of all companies in the United States that take custody of natural gas, excluding consumers and

producers. For the 1993 survey, there were approximately 2,064 respondents that completed Form EIA-176. Of those

companies, only 553 which operated a fleet of 10 vehicles or more were required to complete the fleet survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-6 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

The respondents to the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey were asked to provide the following information:

• Distribution of fleet vehicles among size classes, fuel type, and AFV engine technologies (i.e., multifuel vs.

dedicated)

• Fleet vehicle retirements, acquisitions, and conversions planned for 1994

• Fleet vehicles fueling practices for conventional-fuel and alternative-fuel vehicles

• Fuel consumption

• Daily vehicle miles traveled range

• Employee usage of fleet vehicles

• Average length of service of fleet vehicles before retirement (in months and miles)

• Source of AFV’s (original equipment manufacturer vs. conversion).
Gasoline

(30%)

Diesel

(24%)

Propane

(47%)

CNG

(0%)

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-7

Figure 3.3.1. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles by Fuel, 1993

3.3. Fleet Size and Composition

Propane Provider Fleet Survey

At the end of 1993, propane providers in the United States operated approximately 82,000 fleet vehicles. More than

two-thirds of these vehicles were medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks, i.e., trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW)

greater than 8,500 pounds. These large vehicles tended to be trucks for making deliveries of propane to households and

businesses. Large pickup trucks made up the next largest share of fleet vehicles.

Nearly half (47 percent) of the propane provider fleet vehicles were fueled by alternative fuels, more than were fueled

by either gasoline or diesel alone (Figure 3.3.1). As expected, the primary alternative fuel used by propane providers

in their fleet vehicles was propane. Only a small number (less than one percent) of their AFV’s were fueled by

compressed natural gas (CNG).

Nearly all of the propane vehicles reported by the propane providers (89 percent) were dedicated vehicles, that is,

vehicles that operate solely on one fuel--in this case, propane. Multifuel vehicles, meaning AFV’s capable of operating

on more than one fuel, i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, dual-fuel, and electric hybrid vehicles, made up the rest of the AFV’s. 

Considerable disparity in the proportion of AFV’s in fleets existed between the fleets operated by the top 35 providers

and the smaller providers. The top 35 providers operated about three times as many light-duty vehicles fueled by

propane as light-duty vehicles fueled by gasoline or diesel alone. The top 35 providers operated nearly five times as

many propane vehicles as gasoline or diesel vehicles within the medium- and heavy-duty classes. In contrast, the fleets

operated by the smaller providers contain twice as many conventional-fuel vehicles as propane vehicles in these classes

(Table 3.3.1).
202

20

15

3

7

12

23

39

12

70

Total

Compact Cars

Mid-Size Cars

Large Cars

Mini-Vans

Full-Size Vans

Small Pickups

Large Pickups

Sport/Utility

Medium/Heavy Duty

Vehicle Size Class

0 50 100 150 200 250

Thousands of Vehicles

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative 

Fuels, Form EIA-861 Schedule VII, Electric Utility Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-8 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 3.3.2. Electric Utility Fleet Vehicles by Size Class, 1993

Table 3.3.1. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles by Provider Category, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Provider Category Medium-/Heavy-Duty

and Vehicle Type Total Light-Duty Vehicles Vehicles

Total ........................... 81,967 25,648 56,319 

Top 35 Providers

Total Vehicles ................. 24,236 6,730 17,506 

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles ...... 4,694 1,685 3,010 

Propane Vehicles .............. 19,448 4,956 14,492 

Remaining Providers

Total Vehicles ................. 57,731 21,057 36,674 

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles ...... 39,005 14,375 24,631 

Propane Vehicles .............. 18,726 6,682 12,044 

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

Fleets can acquire alternative-fuel vehicles in two ways: by purchasing them from an original equipment manufacturer

(OEM) or by converting a conventional-fuel vehicle to operate on an alternative fuel. The propane providers used both

methods to place AFV’s in their fleets, but for the most part the propane providers tended to operate converted AFV’s.

Among dedicated AFV’s, only 27 percent were OEM vehicles and only 17 percent of multifuel vehicles were obtained

from OEM’s. Overall, three-fourths of the AFV’s operated by propane providers were converted from conventional-fuel

vehicles.

Electric Utility Fleet Survey 

 As of December 31, 1993, electric

utilities with fleets of 10 vehicles or more

operated a total of 201,836 vehicles.

These vehicles were widely distributed

among the different vehicle size classes,

although nearly one-third of the vehicles

(70,448 vehicles) were medium-duty and

heavy-duty trucks. Pickup trucks were the

next largest category of vehicles, followed

by compact and mid-size passenger cars.

Nearly 20 percent of all fleet vehicles in

electric utility fleets were passenger cars,

in contrast to the propane provider fleets,

which had only three percent passenger

cars (Figure 3.3.2).
CNG

(67.1%)

Other

(0.2%) Methanol/Ethanol

(16.7%)

Propane

(11.8%)

Electricity

(4.2%)

 Note: Alternative-Fuel vehicles represent only three percent of the total fleet vehicles operated by 

electric utilities.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative Fuels, 

Form EIA-861 Schedule VII, Electric Utility Fleet Survey.

138

11

12

4

6

15

16

31

6

36

Total

Compact Cars

Mid-Size Cars

Large Cars

Mini-Vans

Full-Size Vans

Small Pickups

Large Pickups

Sport/Utility

Medium/Heavy Duty

Vehicle Size Class

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Thousands of Vehicles

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176 Schedule B, 

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-9

Figure 3.3.3. Electric Utility Fleet Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles by Fuel, 1993

Figure 3.3.4. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicles by Size

Class, 1993

Nearly all fleet vehicles (97 percent) operated

by electric utilities were conventional-fuel

vehicles, with the vast majority of those being

dedicated gasoline vehicles. Approximately

21 percent of the conventional-fuel vehicles in

electric utility fleets were diesel vehicles.

Only 3 percent of the fleet vehicles were

alternative-fuel vehicles, and two-thirds of

these AFV’s were fueled with CNG. These

CNG vehicles were mostly multifuel vehicles

(78 percent), with only 821 of the 3,756 CNG

vehicles being dedicated vehicles. The next

most common alternative fuel used in electric

utility fleets was methanol/ethanol (used in

935 vehicles), followed by propane (658

vehicles), and then electricity (237 vehicles).

An insignificant number of alternative-fuel

vehicles are fueled by other alternative fuels,

mostly liquid natural gas (Figure 3.3.3).

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey

At the end of 1993, natural gas suppliers with fleets of 10 or more vehicles operated a total of 138,324 fleet vehicles.

As with the fleets operated by electric utilities, the fleet vehicles operated by natural gas suppliers were well distributed

among the various vehicle size classes. However, pickup trucks and full-sized vans made up nearly half (45 percent)

of the fleet vehicles used by natural gas suppliers. Medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles represented a substantial 26

percent of the fleet vehicles in use. Passenger cars made up another 20 percent (Figure 3.3.4).

Gasoline vehicles dominated the conventional-fuel vehicles with 85 percent of the total. These vehicles were mostly

light-duty vehicles, with medium-duty and heavy-duty vehicles representing only 17 percent of the gasoline vehicles.

The remaining 15 percent of the conventional-fuel vehicles were mostly medium-duty and heavy-duty diesel vehicles.

Predictably, most AFV’s (87 percent) were fueled by CNG, but the natural gas providers did make significant use of

propane as a vehicle fuel. Of the 14,032 CNG vehicles in natural gas supplier fleets, 84 percent (11,809 vehicles) were
Conversions OEM

Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Source

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Multifuel Dedicated

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176 Schedule B, 

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-10 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 3.3.5. Natural Gas Supplier Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

by Technology and Source, 1993

multifuel vehicles. Conversely, dedicated propane vehicles outnumbered multifuel propane vehicles. Fewer than 1

percent were fueled by electricity and other alternative fuels.

The alternative-fuel vehicles in natural gas supplier fleets were almost all converted vehicles. The few OEM vehicles

in use in natural gas supplier fleets tended to be dedicated vehicles--only 55 were reported to be OEM multifuel vehicles.

The dedicated vehicles in operation were fairly evenly split between OEM and conversion vehicles: 1,582 OEM vehicles

and 1,401 converted vehicles (Figure 3.3.5).
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-11

3.4. Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans

Propane Provider Fleet Survey

The propane providers were asked to report their plans for vehicle retirements and acquisitions during 1994. Only 6

percent (5,592 vehicles) of the fleet vehicles operated by propane providers were planned for retirement, nearly half (47

percent) of which were AFV’s. The planned acquisitions, 6,970 vehicles, would more than make up for the vehicles

being retired.

In addition to the acquisitions, 1,475 vehicle conversions were planned for 1994. There is some double counting in the

acquisitions and conversions data. Analysis of the reported data revealed that if a respondent had plans to acquire a new

vehicle in 1994 and then immediately convert that vehicle to an alternative fuel, in some cases that vehicle was reported

as both an acquisition and a conversion. Analyzing the data to correct the double counting shows that of the 1,475

conversions planned for 1994, 921 were conversions of newly acquired conventional-fuel vehicles and 554 were

conversions of vehicles previously operated within the fleet as conventional-fuel vehicles. Overall, more new AFV’s

were planned for service in 1994 than conventional-fuel vehicles, including both new vehicles and old vehicles being

converted to use alternative fuels.

Electric Utility Fleet Survey

Only about 9 percent of the fleet vehicles operated by electric utilities (18,956 vehicles) were planned for retirement

during 1994. Most retirements were planned for gasoline vehicles; of the total of 16,438 gasoline vehicles planned for

retirement, 2,736 were medium/heavy-duty vehicles, 5,675 were pickup trucks, and 3,052 were compact passenger cars.

Only 455 AFV’s were planned for retirement, and most of these were large pickup trucks. The acquisitions planned for

1994 (18,182 vehicles) would not completely replace all vehicles being retired. Only 724 conversions of conventionalfuel vehicles to alternative-fuel vehicles were planned.

As with the propane survey data, there is double counting within the data regarding fleet vehicle acquisitions and

conversions. A similar analysis to the one conducted with the propane provider fleet data revealed that of the 724

conversions planned for 1994, only 159 were conversions of existing fleet vehicles. The other 565 planned conversions

were of vehicles newly purchased as conventional-fuel vehicles. Further, only 1,003 of the planned new vehicle

acquisitions (6 percent) were AFV’s. The remainder were conventional-fuel vehicles, some of which were planned for

subsequent conversion.

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey

The natural gas suppliers planned to retire a larger percentage of their fleet vehicles than either the propane providers

or the electric utilities. About 12 percent (17,088 vehicles) of the fleet vehicles operated by natural gas suppliers were

planned for retirement during 1994. In addition, only 14,374 vehicle acquisitions were planned, indicating that the fleets

operated by natural gas suppliers tended to downsize in 1994. Only 7 percent of the planned vehicle retirements included

alternative-fuel vehicles.

A total of 4,623 newly acquired AFV’s and conversions of existing vehicles to AFV’s were planned for service in 1994.

Almost 80 percent of those planned vehicles were multifuel CNG vehicles. Most CNG vehicles were light-duty vehicles,

with the largest proportion (40 percent) being large pickup trucks. The Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey did not

experience the double counting problems encountered in the Propane Provider Fleet Survey and the Electric Utility Fleet

Survey, so all of the 1,623 planned conversions represent conversions planned for existing fleet vehicles.
69

2

4

25

0

94

2

0

4

0

Company Site

Private

Restricted Public

Unrestricted Public

Other

Type of Facility

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of Vehicles

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176 Schedule B, 

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-13

Figure 3.5.1. Types of Fueling Facilities Used by Natural

Gas Supplier Fleets, 1993

3.5 Fleet Operating Characteristics

In addition to the fleet size and composition characteristics covered above, the Propane Provider Fleet Survey (top 35

providers only) and the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey also collected information regarding operating characteristics.

Information collected included data concerning fleet vehicle fueling facilities, vehicle usage by employees, vehicle

replacement cycles, vehicle fuel storage and consumption, and vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the top 35 propane

providers responded to questions about vehicle costs.

Fleet Vehicle Fueling Facilities

A company has several ways to fuel its fleet vehicles. Large commercial fleets tend to use their own fuel tanks located

on a company site to fuel their vehicles. Fleets can also fuel at public fueling stations in the same manner as personal

vehicles are fueled, or at private facilities that are designed for use by fleets and are not open to the general public. Fleets

sometimes enter into fuel-purchase agreements with their fueling facilities, stipulating that the fleet agrees to purchase

its fuel from a specific facility. If the fleet has a credit card for use at a facility but has no commitment to purchase fuel

there, then such an arrangement is not considered a fuel purchase agreement. 

The EPACT purchase mandates use central fueling as a criterion for determining which fuel provider fleets would be

covered by vehicle purchase requirements, so questions about fueling arrangements were asked in order to determine

whether alternative-fuel providers were centrally fueled or were capable of being centrally fueled. 

Propane Provider Survey

Conventional-fuel vehicles, for the most part, were fueled either at a company-owned location or at a public fueling

location without any type of fuel-purchase agreement. A small number of conventional-fuel vehicles also obtained their

fuel at private facilities not open to the public. The data indicate that the propane provider fleets tended not to enter into

fuel-purchase agreements with the facilities that provide their fuel.

Only a very small number of the AFV’s operated by propane providers fuel at facilities other than company-owned sites.

This is probably because almost all of the AFV’s operated by propane providers run on propane and therefore use the

company’s fuel. Vehicles that do obtain their fuel off-site generally purchase the fuel through a fuel-purchase agreement

with private facilities.

Natural Gas Supplier Survey

Natural gas suppliers tended to fuel their

fleet vehicles at a variety of types of

facilities. For both the conventional-fuel

vehicles and the alternative-fuel vehicles,

the majority of vehicles were fueled on

company-owned sites, but significant

numbers of vehicles fueled at other types of

facilities. More than one-quarter (35,370

vehicles) of the conventional-fuel vehicles

operated in fleets belonging to natural gas

suppliers were fueled at public fueling

facilities. Nearly all of those (88 percent)

were fueled without any commitments to a

fuel purchase agreement.
Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

84

51

57

68

77

82

93

99

79

96

100

91

60

80

55

84

77

99

91

93

95

All Vehicle Types

Compact Cars

Mid-Size Cars

Large Cars

Mini-Vans

Full-Size Vans

Small Pickups

Large Pickups

Sport/Utility

Medium-Duty Trucks

Heavy-Duty Trucks

Vehicle Type

0 30 60 90 120

Months

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles Propane Vehicles

Q

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-14 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 3.5.2. Months-Based Replacement Cycles for

Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles

Only 6 percent of AFV’s, or 1,004 vehicles, were fueled off-site, a much lower percentage than for conventional-fuel

vehicles (Figure 3.5.1).

 

Fleet Vehicle Usage by Employees

Company vehicles parked overnight at an employee’s residence and not centrally fueled from the provider’s facility are

excluded from a provider’s fleet for purposes of determining whether a fleet is subject to EPACT’s purchase mandates.

For that reason, the Propane Provider Fleet Survey (top 35 providers) and the Natural Gas Providers Survey collected

information regarding the availability of fleet vehicles to company employees. 

Propane Provider Survey

Nearly all vehicles (87 percent) operated by propane providers were available to their employees for business use only,

and those vehicles were garaged overnight at a company site. The remaining vehicles were available to employees for

commuting and business use or for unrestricted business and personal use, and would most likely be garaged overnight

at the employees’ residences. The respondents also indicated that 99 percent of employees who had the unrestricted

use of company vehicles were required to keep a log to record personal and business use.

Natural Gas Supplier Survey

Fleet vehicles operated by natural gas suppliers tended not to be available to company employees for uses other than

business. Three-fourths of the fleet vehicles were designated as for business use only. Employees were allowed to use

another 16 percent (22,662 vehicles) for commuting to and from work in addition to using them for business. A

relatively small number of vehicles were available to employees for unrestricted or other uses. These data indicate that

the fleets belonging to natural gas suppliers were, for the most part, garaged at a company site.

Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles 

Replacement cycles refer to the amount of time (or other measure) a company keeps its vehicles before retiring and/or

replacing them. A company may retire or replace a vehicle after a certain number of months or after the vehicle has been

driven a certain number of miles. In these surveys, respondents could provide replacement cycle data in months, miles,

or both. 

Propane Provider Survey

The average months-based cycle for

conventional-fuel vehicles in propane

provider fleets was 84 months, although

propane vehicles were in service for an

average of 91 months (Figure 3.5.2). The

average miles-based cycle for

conventional-fuel vehicles (216,482

miles) was higher than for propane

vehicles (179,866 miles) (Figure 3.5.3).

Analysis of the miles-based cycles for the

individual vehicle types reveals that this

was completely due to the miles-based

cycle for the heavy-duty trucks. The

miles-based replacement cycle for

conventional-fuel heavy-duty vehicles
Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

216

112

94

121

121

131

125

142

150

322

180

167

177

233

188

181

182

174

All Vehicle Types

Compact Cars

Mid-Size Cars

Large Cars

Mini-Vans

Full-Size Vans

Small Pickups

Large Pickups

Sport/Utility

Medium-Duty Trucks

Heavy-Duty Trucks

Vehicle Type

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Thousand Miles

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles

Propane Vehicles Q

Q

Q

Q

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-15

Figure 3.5.3. Miles-Based Replacement Cycles for Propane

Provider Fleet Vehicles

was nearly twice that of the propane heavyduty vehicles. This is most likely because

the conventional-fuel heavy-duty

vehicles travel longer distances than the

heavy-duty vehicles fueled by alternative

fuels, but the miles traveled data

(discussed below) for light-duty vehicles

are much more similar. 

Analysis of the replacement cycle data

reported by the respondents to the Propane

Provider Fleet Survey reveals that there is

a discrepancy within the reported data.

The propane providers reported that

approximately 6 percent of their fleet

vehicles were planned for retirement in

1994. If 1994 was a typical year for

vehicle retirements, then about 100 percent

of the fleet vehicles would have been

retired and replaced every 17 years. However, data indicate that the typical reported replacement cycle for vehicles is

approximately every 7 years. The data collected in the survey cannot positively explain this discrepancy, but possible

explanations can be offered. One explanation is that nearly half of all retirements and/or replacements are unplanned;

that is, although only 6 percent of the vehicles are planned for retirement at the beginning of a given year, another 6

percent may be retired or replaced due to vehicle condition or other unforeseen circumstances. Four respondents

reported that they did not retire their vehicles on a cycle, but rather they retired or replaced them when the condition of

the vehicle dictated that it was necessary. Another possible explanation is that 1994 was an abnormal year for

retirements, and in a normal year, twice that many vehicles tend to be retired or replaced.

Natural Gas Supplier Survey

The replacement cycles for fleet vehicles reported by the natural gas suppliers indicated that fleet vehicles tended to be

replaced more often in natural gas supplier fleets than in propane provider fleets. On average, vehicles are replaced after

about 6 years of use or after 94,530 miles have been traveled, slightly less than the average replacement cycles for the

vehicles in propane provider fleets. A possible explanation may be that propane provider fleets contain more mediumduty and heavy-duty vehicles, which tend to be replaced less often than the light-duty vehicles that are more prominent

in natural gas supplier fleets.

There also appears to be a small discrepancy between the planned vehicle retirements and the reported replacement

cycles among natural gas suppliers. The natural gas suppliers reported that they planned to retire approximately 12

percent of their fleet vehicles in 1994. Using the same logic as with the propane provider fleet data, one could conclude

that the entire fleet is replaced approximately every 8 years. However, the natural gas suppliers reported that the average

replacement cycle for their fleet vehicles is about 6 years. In addition to the possible explanations provided with the

propane provider fleet data, another reason for the discrepancy could be that the suppliers report the replacement cycles

that the company would like to adhere to, but, due to budgetary or other constraints, those cycles cannot be met and fleet

vehicles are actually kept in service longer than the replacement cycles indicate. However, none of the possible

explanations provided in this report can be confirmed using the data collected on the fuel provider surveys.

Fleet Vehicle Fuel Storage Capacity

One of the most prominent drawbacks of alternative-fuel vehicles is that the vehicles cannot be driven as far between

refuelings as conventional-fuel vehicles. Additional fuel tanks are often placed in the vehicles in order to provide

additional fuel. Information on fuel storage capacity was collected only from the propane providers. 
2,640

1,029

3,583

1,696

1,745

3,402

All Vehicles

Light-Duty

Medium/Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Size Class

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000

Consumption (gallons)

Dedicated Vehicles

Multifuel Vehicles

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-16 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 3.5.4. Annual Propane Consumption per Vehicle by

Vehicle Size Class for Propane Provider Fleet

Vehicles

The survey data reveal that the propane vehicles indeed had more fuel storage capacity than the conventional-fuel

vehicles. The average fuel storage capacity for dedicated vehicles in the light-duty category was approximately 91

percent higher for propane vehicles than for conventional-fuel vehicles. The difference between multifuel vehicles and

conventional-fuel vehicles was much smaller. For the multifuel light-duty vehicles, the average fuel storage capacity for

propane was only approximately 22 percent higher than the storage capacity for conventional fuels in conventional-fuel

vehicles. This may be due to the fact that in multifuel vehicles, capacity is needed for both propane and gasoline or

diesel. Meaningful comparisons between the reported propane and conventional fuel storage capacities for the mediumand heavy-duty vehicles cannot be made, because these vehicles are often fueled from the large delivery tanks they carry,

which can hold thousands of gallons of propane. 

Fleet Vehicle Fuel Consumption 

Propane Provider Survey

Of the three fuels that are significantly represented in propane provider fleets (gasoline, diesel, and propane), the most

heavily consumed per vehicle is diesel (6,512 gallons per vehicle per year). Diesel fuel is used, for the most part, in the

heavy-duty trucks that tend not only to travel long distances, but also to achieve low fuel economies--even though diesel

is more efficient than gasoline for similar

vehicle types. Gasoline tends to be the

least consumed fuel, with dedicated

gasoline vehicles only consuming an

average of about 1,100 gallons per

vehicle per year. Multifuel AFV’s

consume an average of another 200

gallons of gasoline per vehicle per year.

Annual consumption of propane per

vehicle was about 2,640 gallons in

dedicated propane vehicles and 1,696

gallons in multifuel vehicles. As

expected, the largest consumers of

propane were the medium-duty and

heavy-duty trucks. The dedicated

medium-duty and heavy-duty propane

vehicles consumed an average of 3,583

gallons of propane per vehicle per year,

while the multifuel vehicles consumed

3,402 gallons per vehicle per year.

Although over all vehicle types the

dedicated vehicles tended to be heavier consumers per vehicle of propane than the multifuel vehicles, among just lightduty vehicles, the multifuel propane vehicles consumed about 70 percent more per vehicle per year than the dedicated

propane vehicles (Figure 3.5.4).

Natural Gas Supplier Survey

This Section deleted due to concern over unreliability of data.
19

48

24

3

19

Gasoline

Diesel

Propane

Fuel

0 10 20 30 40 50

Thousand Miles Traveled

Dedicated Vehicles

Multifuel Vehicles

Q

Q = Data Withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-17

Figure 3.5.6. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled per Vehicle on

Gasoline, Diesel, and Propane by Vehicle

Technology for Propane Provider Fleet

Vehicles

Fleet Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Propane Provider Survey

In the analysis of annual vehicle miles

traveled, the diesel vehicles tended to

stand out. On average, over all vehicle

types, the diesel vehicles traveled twice as

far per year than the next closest category,

dedicated propane vehicles, averaging

slightly less than 48,000 miles per year per

vehicle. Dedicated gasoline vehicles

traveled about 20,000 miles per year, and

approximately 3,500 additional miles were

traveled on gasoline in multifuel AFV’s

(Figure 3.5.6). Because little gasoline was

consumed in multifuel vehicles and

multifuel vehicles traveled relatively few

miles on gasoline, one can conclude that

the multifuel propane vehicles operated by

propane providers were more likely to run

on propane than gasoline. Overall, the

propane vehicles traveled an average of

about 21,000 miles per year per vehicle. The dedicated propane vehicles (23,997 miles per year) do tend to travel

slightly more in a year than the multifuel propane vehicles (18,768 miles per year).
54

56

48

35

52

48

54

41

58

72

37

42

45

42

39

46

40

43

33

24

8

2

7

24

9

6

6

16

9

4

All Vehicle Types

Compact Cars

Mid-Size Cars

Large Cars

Mini-Vans

Full-Size Vans

Small Pickups

Large Pickups

Sport/Utility

Medium/Heavy Duty

Vehicle Type

0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent of Vehicles

 0 to 50 Miles

51 to 100 Miles

More than 100 Miles

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas,Form EIA-176 Schedule B, 

Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-18 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 3.5.7. Daily Miles Traveled by Natural Gas Supplier

Fleet Vehicles

Natural Gas Supplier Survey

Natural gas supplier fleet vehicles tended not to travel long distances on a daily basis. Miles traveled data were collected

from the respondents to the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey in the form of ranges of daily miles traveled. Nearly all

fleet vehicles (92 percent) traveled between 0 and 100 miles per day on average. The vehicles that traveled more miles

in a day tended to be large passenger cars and large pickup trucks (Figure 3.5.7).

Fleet Vehicle Operating Costs

Proponents of alternative-fuel vehicles often cite lower operating costs as a benefit of these vehicles, so the Propane

Provider Survey asked respondents about their vehicle operating costs. The Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey did not

include these questions.

Operating costs were separated into three types of costs: vehicle acquisition costs, costs to convert vehicles to an

alternative fuel, and maintenance costs. Data on acquisition costs and conversion costs were collected in dollars, and

data on maintenance costs were collected as a comparison between conventional-fuel vehicles and alternative-fuel

vehicles; that is, the respondents were asked to report if the maintenance costs for a particular alternative-fuel vehicle

were more or less than a comparable conventional-fuel vehicle and by what percentage.

No clear trend appears between conventional-fuel vehicle acquisition costs and the cost to acquire propane vehicles. For

example, the costs were about equal for large pickup trucks; for medium-duty trucks (8,501 to 26,000 lbs. GVW), the

conventional-fuel vehicles were acquired for less than the dedicated propane vehicles; and for heavy-duty trucks (more

than 26,000 lbs. GVW), the costs to acquire conventional-fuel vehicles were significantly higher than the costs to acquire

propane vehicles. On average, for all vehicle types, the acquisition costs for conventional-fuel vehicles ($35,802) tended

to be 73 percent higher than the cost to acquire propane vehicles ($20,736) (Figure 3.5.8). The majority of this

difference can be attributed to the difference between acquisition costs for propane vehicles and for conventional-fuel

heavy-duty vehicles. The differences for the other vehicle types are not nearly that great. The large difference in the

heavy-duty vehicle category cannot be explained without further information, but one possible explanation is that the

heavy-duty propane vehicles tend to be just slightly more than 26,000 lbs. GVW, whereas the conventional-fuel heavyduty vehicles are very large vehicles weighing substantially more than 26,000 lbs. This explanation would be consistent

with the finding that the acquisition costs for heavy-duty propane vehicles tend to be very close to the acquisition costs

for medium-duty propane vehicles.
Conventional-Fuel Dedicated Propane Multifuel Propane

Vehicle Type

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

Acquisition Cost

Conversion Cost

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form 

EIA-885, Propane Provider Fleet Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-19

Figure 3.5.8. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Acquisition

and Conversion Costs

The cost to convert vehicles from a

conventional fuel to an alternative fuel was

fairly stable over the various vehicle types,

ranging from around $1,200 to just under

$1,800. The most costly conversion

appeared to be the conversion of a large

passenger car ($1,783) to a dedicated AFV,

and the least expensive conversion tended

to be that of medium-duty trucks to

multifuel vehicles ($1,150). Conversion to

a dedicated AFV tended to cost slightly

more than conversion to a multifuel vehicle,

with the difference averaging $100 to $150

(Figure 3.5.8).

One of the many benefits of AFV’s

promoted by the industry is that they are

more economical to maintain because the

engines tend to have fewer moving parts

and the fuels burn cleaner. The data from the Propane Provider Fleet Survey seem to confirm this. The respondents

report that the maintenance costs for their propane vehicles are less than for their conventional-fuel vehicles across all

vehicle types. The difference between the two types of vehicles is slightly greater for dedicated vehicles (5.7 percent)

than for multifuel vehicles (4.4 percent).
 For more information, see section “3.7 Data Quality.” 3

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-21

3.6 Detailed Tables

The tables on the following pages present all data collected on the alternative-fuel provider surveys. All numbers quoted

in the preceding text and figures can be obtained using the data in the detailed tables. For those tables that include data

from the sampled companies, the corresponding table of Relative Standard Errors is also provided. Tables 3.6.1 through 3

3.6.16 contain data from the Propane Provider Fleet Survey; Tables 3.6.17 through 3.6.19 contain data from the Electric

Utility Fleet Survey; and Tables 3.6.20 through 3.6.28 present data from the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.

State-level data for the Electric Utility Fleet Survey and the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey are available. These data

can be accessed using EIA’s file transfer protocol (ftp) site on the Internet at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov in the

pub/consumption directory.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-22 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.1. Fleet Vehicles Operated by Propane Providers as of December 31, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 lbs. >26,000

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 43,699 279 1,801 Q Q 1,571 585 8,040 575 10,128 17,512

 Gasoline ......... 24,288 279 1,801 Q Q 1,545 584 6,360 571 7,686 2,255

 Diesel ........... 19,412 NC NC Q NC Q Q Q Q 2,443 15,257

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 38,267 131 41 65 14 Q 1,282 9,786 Q 15,078 11,462

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC Q Q Q NC NC NC

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane

 Dedicated ....... 33,800 124 6 Q Q Q 1,082 7,080 Q 14,383 10,719

 Multifuel ........ 4,374 6 35 39 6 Q 182 2,659 NC 691 743

Total ............. 81,967 409 1,842 Q Q 1,934 1,867 17,826 732 25,300 28,974

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because Relative Standard Errors are greater than 50 percent or fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table are based on total survey sample (top 35 providers as well as 100 sampled providers). • Totals may not equal sum of

components due to independent rounding. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e.,bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and

dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-23

Table 3.6.2. Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.6.1

(Percent)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 lbs. >26,000

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 24 27 41 78 52 34 49 25 44 30 27

 Gasoline . . . . . . . . . 28 27 41 78 52 35 49 26 44 36 32

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . 25 NA NA 0 NA 0 0 68 0 27 30

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 17 0 0 0 0 64 6 33 0 11 25

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . 0 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 NA NA NA

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 0 NA 0 NA

 Propane

 Dedicated . . . . . . . 19 0 0 0 0 71 7 44 0 11 27

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 NA 41 43

Total ............. 16 19 40 76 51 30 16 21 35 14 20

 NA = Not applicable.

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-24 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.3. Alternative-Fuel Fleet Vehicles in Propane Provider Fleets by Source, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Source Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Total Vehicles .......... 38,267 131 41 65 14 Q 1,282 9,786 Q 15,078 11,462

Dedicated

 Original Equipment ..... 9,131 Q Q NC NC Q NC Q Q 3,742 Q

 Conversion ............ 24,709 Q Q Q Q Q 1,088 6,918 Q 10,756 5,415

Multifuel

 Original Equipment . . . . . 605 NC NC NC NC NC Q Q NC Q Q

 Conversion ............ 3,823 7 35 40 6 Q 186 2,396 NC Q 621

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because Relative Standard Errors are greater than 50 percent or fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table are based on total survey sample (top 35 providers as well as 100 sampled providers). • Totals may not equal sum of

components due to independent rounding. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and

dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."

Table 3.6.4. Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.6.3

(Percent)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Source Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Total Vehicles .......... 17 0 0 0 0 64 6 33 0 11 25

Dedicated

 Original Equipment . . . . . 31 0 0 NA NA 0 NA 83 0 16 54

 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 0 0 0 0 71 7 45 0 14 13

Multifuel

 Original Equipment . . . . . 36 NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA 97 73

 Conversion . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 NA 55 25

 NA = Not applicable.

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-25

Table 3.6.5. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans - 1994

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fleet Vehicle Plans Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Retirements .......... 5,592 101 234 Q Q Q 165 502 Q 1,658 2,395

 Gasoline ............. 1,475 74 229 Q Q Q 26 Q Q Q Q

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC Q Q Q Q 46 Q

 Alternative Fuel ....... 2,627 Q Q 10 NC 13 138 408 NC 1,221 803

Acquisitions .......... 6,970 60 491 11 Q Q 116 Q Q 2,056 2,730

Conversions to AFV .... 1,475 NC Q Q NC Q 127 344 Q 666 317

Conversions to

Gasoline ............. 1 115 NC Q Q Q NC Q Q Q 44 25

Conversions to

Diesel ............... 1 Q NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Q NC

 "Conversions to Gasoline" and "Conversions to Diesel" refer to vehicles being converted from an alternative fuel to gasoline or diesel. 1

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because Relative Standard Errors are greater than 50 percent or fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table are based on total survey sample (top 35 providers as well as 100 sampled providers). • Totals may not equal sum of

components due to independent rounding.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."

Table 3.6.6. Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.6.5

(Percent)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fleet Vehicle Plans Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Retirements .......... 31 0 47 82 0 85 0 22 95 23 44

 Gasoline . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 0 48 92 0 89 0 86 96 81 70

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 NA NA NA NA 0 0 0 0 0 70

 Alternative Fuel . . . . . . . 15 0 0 0 NA 0 0 19 NA 17 39

Acquisitions .......... 24 0 46 0 96 54 0 51 91 22 28

Conversions to AFV .... 13 NA 0 0 NA 0 0 31 0 23 0

Conversions to

Gasoline ............. 1 0 NA 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0

Conversions to

Diesel ............... 1 100 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 NA

 "Conversions to Gasoline" and "Conversions to Diesel" refer to vehicles being converted from an alternative fuel to gasoline or diesel. 1

 NA = Not applicable.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-26 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.7. "New" Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 19941

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 3,151 57 467 4 Q Q Q 54 Q Q 1,451

 Gasoline ......... 1,400 57 465 3 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q

 Diesel ........... 1,750 NC Q Q NC Q NC 18 Q 356 1,366

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 4,373 Q Q 10 Q Q 158 1,180 Q 1,629 1,350

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC Q Q NC NC NC

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Propane

 Dedicated ....... 4,226 NC Q Q Q Q 143 1,111 Q 1,617 1,326

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . 122 Q Q 9 Q NC Q 54 Q Q Q

Total ............. 7,524 60 494 14 Q Q 168 1,233 Q 2,296 2,801

 "New" Vehicles refers to both newly acquired vehicles and existing vehicles converted to operate on a new fuel. 1

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because Relative Standard Errors are greater than 50 percent or fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table are based on total survey sample (top 35 providers as well as 100 sampled providers). • Totals may not equal sum of

components due to independent rounding. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and

dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-27

Table 3.6.8. Relative Standard Errors for Table 3.6.7

(Percent)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 40 0 48 0 96 55 0 0 91 51 41

 Gasoline . . . . . . . . . 42 0 49 0 96 56 0 0 92 78 90

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . 39 NA 0 0 NA 0 NA 0 0 43 43

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles .......... 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 0 21 37

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . 0 NA NA NA NA NA 0 0 NA NA NA

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

 Propane

 Dedicated . . . . . . . 28 NA 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 21 38

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 NA 0 0 0 0 0

Total ............. 23 0 46 0 95 54 0 45 79 21 27

 NA = Not applicable.

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-28 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.9. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Fueling Locations, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type and Fueling compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Location Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

Conventional-Fuel Vehicles

 Company-Owned ........ 2,167 NC 23 3 Q 506 54 139 Q 437 953

 Private

 Restricted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Q Q NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Unrestricted . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 Q 63 22 Q 15 Q Q Q 48 142

 Public

 Restricted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q NC NC Q NC NC Q Q Q

 Unrestricted ............ 2,089 121 373 28 18 33 50 52 Q 161 1,250

Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

 Company-Owned ........ 19,534 131 41 65 14 125 1,202 3,414 Q 8,318 6,179

 Private

 Restricted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC Q Q NC Q NC NC

 Unrestricted . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Public

 Restricted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Unrestricted . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. 

• A "restricted" location refers to the situation where the fleet fuels at a particular location under the obligation of a fuel purchase agreement. If there is

no fuel purchase agreement, the location is considered to be "unrestricted."

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-29

Table 3.6.10. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Usage for Vehicles Assigned to Employees, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Usage Total Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Total Vehicles .... 24,236 332 521 117 63 690 1,323 3,607 76 8,967 8,539

Business Use

Only ............ 21,084 Q 47 48 19 461 522 2,681 69 8,612 8,474

Business Use &

Commuting ...... 1,603 20 46 48 37 223 169 638 Q 354 65

Unrestricted Use

(Log) ........... 1,526 162 414 13 6 Q 632 287 Q NC NC

Unrestricted Use

(No Log) ......... 23 NC 13 7 Q NC NC Q NC NC NC

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding. 

• "Unrestricted Use" refers to usage that includes business use, commuting, and personal use. This type of usage can be with accounting of personal

versus business use (Log) or without such accounting (No Log).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-30 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.11. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles, 1993

(Months and Miles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Cycle Unit and Fleet compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Fuel Type Average Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

Months

 Gasoline/

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . 84 51 57 68 77 82 93 99 79 96 100

 Compressed

 Natural Gas . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane . . . . . . . . 91 60 80 55 84 77 99 91 Q 93 95

Miles

 Gasoline/

 Diesel .......... 216,482 111,667 94,000 121,417 120,714 131,250 125,000 142,200 Q 149,500 321,625

 Compressed

 Natural Gas . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane ........ 179,866 Q 166,667 176,667 Q 233,333 188,125 180,688 Q 182,250 174,438

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Note: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-31

Table 3.6.12. Propane Provider Fleet Vehicle Costs, 1993

(Dollars per Vehicle)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Cost and Fleet compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Fuel Type Average Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Sub- 8,501 to

Acquisition Costs

 Gasoline/Diesel ...... 35,802 12,167 15,451 21,687 Q 20,000 Q 17,354 Q 21,904 51,985

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Propane

 Dedicated ........... 23,238 NC NC Q NC NC 15,230 17,629 NC 27,144 29,105

 Multifuel ............ 18,233 Q Q Q Q Q 16,600 20,112 NC 19,780 NC

Conversion Costs

 Compressed

 Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane

 Dedicated ........... 1,378 Q Q 1,783 Q 1,367 1,500 1,197 Q 1,350 1,232

 Multifuel ............ 1,386 Q 1,367 1,417 Q Q 1,279 1,283 NC 1,150 Q

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel

(i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-32 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.13. Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Maintenance Costs Relative to Conventional-Fuel Vehicles in Propane

Provider Fleets, 1993

(Percent)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

8,501 to

Compressed

Natural Gas

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC Q NC NC NC NC NC

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC Q NC Q Q Q Q NC NC

Propane

 Dedicated . . . . . . . . . . Q -1 Q Q -1 -9 -8 Q -11 -4

 Multifuel . . . . . . . . . . . Q -1 -6 Q Q -4 -5 Q -6 Q

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: •Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • A negative percentage indicates lower maintenance costs for the AFV than

for a comparable conventional-fuel vehicle. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and

dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-33

Table 3.6.14. Fuel Storage Capacity in Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993

(Physical Units per Vehicle)

Fuel Type

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

8,501 to

Dedicated

 Gasoline

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . 15 17 24 22 29 20 38 23 44 56

 Diesel

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . NC NC Q NC Q Q 24 Q 43 105

 CNG

 (cubic feet) . . . . . . NC NC NC NC Q Q Q NC NC NC

 Propane

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . 15 39 Q Q 68 49 55 Q 370 684

Multifuel

 Gasoline

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . 22 18 22 17 Q 21 35 NC 28 Q

 Diesel

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Q

 CNG

 (cubic feet) . . . . . . Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane

 (gallons) . . . . . . . . 25 26 27 16 Q 37 49 NC 85 57

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Storage capacity for large propane vehicles is inflated because some vehicles are fueled directly from the delivery tanks. • Data in this table

represent only the top 35 propane providers. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid,

and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-34 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.15. Annual Consumption by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993

(Physical Units per Fleet Vehicle)

Technology and Fuel Average

Fleet

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Dedicated Vehicles

 Gasoline (gallons) ..... 1,082 675 784 959 689 1,032 871 1,458 1,027 1,786 4,078

 Diesel (gallons) ....... 6,512 NC NC Q NC Q Q 1,007 Q 1,947 7,869

 CNG (cubic feet) . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC Q Q Q NC NC NC

 Propane (gallons) ..... 2,640 1,293 608 Q Q 1,051 844 1,349 Q 3,143 4,023

Multifuel Vehicles

 Gasoline (gallons) . . . . . 202 50 275 118 548 Q 101 289 NC 49 Q

 Diesel (gallons) . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Q

 CNG (cubic feet) . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane (gallons) ..... 1,696 1,781 1,693 2,531 1,522 Q 1,315 1,630 NC 2,857 3,947

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel

(i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-35

Table 3.6.16. Annual Miles Traveled by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Propane Provider Fleet Vehicles, 1993

(Miles per Fleet Vehicle)

Fuel and Technology Average

Fleet

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Trucks

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks Medium-/Heavy-Duty

Sub- 8,501 to

compact/ Mid- Mini- Full-Size Small Large Sport/ 26,000 >26,000

Compact Size Large Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility lbs. GVW lbs. GVW

Dedicated Vehicles

 Gasoline ............. 19,056 18,355 17,050 20,401 12,126 12,662 16,695 20,596 19,212 17,188 59,266

 Diesel ............... 47,673 NC NC Q NC Q Q 21,041 Q 15,569 55,085

 CNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC Q Q Q NC NC NC

 Propane ............. 23,997 23,666 9,357 Q Q 12,236 13,973 16,575 Q 22,386 27,107

Multifuel Vehicles

 Gasoline ............. 3,426 1,280 5,633 1,883 8,333 Q 3,427 4,610 NC 3,571 Q

 Diesel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Q

 CNG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC Q Q Q NC Q NC

 Propane ............. 18,768 33,831 24,213 23,260 16,333 Q 20,031 15,116 NC 19,342 19,712

 NC = No cases in sample.

 Q = Data withheld because fewer than three companies are represented.

 Notes: • Data in this table represent only the top 35 propane providers. • “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel

(i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Form EIA-885, "Propane Provider Fleet Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-36 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.17. Fleet Vehicles Operated by Electric Utilities as of December 31, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 196,241 19,589 14,965 3,248 7,011 11,567 22,091 37,137 11,134 69,499

Gasoline .......... 155,070 19,588 14,949 3,238 6,997 11,003 21,870 34,480 10,358 32,587

Diesel ............. 41,171 1 16 10 14 564 221 2,657 776 36,912

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 5,595 244 342 55 193 853 593 1,831 535 949

Compressed

Natural Gas

Dedicated . . . . . . . 821 0 4 3 5 516 13 212 42 26

Multifuel ......... 2,935 92 233 16 128 206 360 1,047 452 401

Propane

Dedicated . . . . . . . 489 1 0 0 0 21 52 91 6 318

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 169 1 0 0 3 3 12 120 11 19

Methanol/Ethanol

Blends

Dedicated . . . . . . . 523 11 47 26 15 20 47 222 13 122

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 412 79 52 9 11 30 62 136 7 26

Electricity

Dedicated . . . . . . . 237 60 6 1 31 50 46 3 4 36

Multifuel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Alternative

Fuels

Dedicated ....... 9 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 1

Multifuel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ................ 201,836 19,833 15,307 3,303 7,204 12,420 22,684 38,968 11,669 70,448

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative Fuels, Form EIA-861, Schedule VII, "Electric Utility Fleet

Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-37

Table 3.6.18. 1994 Electric Utility Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

HeavySubcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Duty

Fleet Vehicle Plans Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Retirements ........... 18,956 3,059 1,966 381 659 1,075 1,983 4,171 1,076 4,586

Gasoline ........... 16,438 3,052 1,911 378 652 1,014 1,895 3,780 1,020 2,736

Diesel ............. 2,063 0 2 0 2 21 32 202 41 1,763

Alternative-Fuel . . . . . . 455 7 53 3 5 40 56 189 15 87

Acquisitions ........... 18,182 2,815 1,539 290 806 1,067 1,929 4,223 946 4,567

Conversions to AFV ..... 724 31 27 3 52 30 128 368 35 50

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative Fuels, Form EIA-861, Schedule VII, "Electric Utility Fleet

Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-38 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.19. "New" Electric Utility Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 19941

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 16,611 2,616 1,413 281 644 865 1,719 3,874 896 4,303

Gasoline .......... 13,388 2,616 1,413 281 644 847 1,684 3,574 826 1,503

Diesel ............. 3,223 0 0 0 0 18 35 300 70 2,800

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 1,727 133 142 7 178 206 299 465 57 240

Compressed

Natural Gas

Dedicated . . . . . . . 208 0 3 0 102 47 13 27 4 12

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 841 36 77 3 55 67 122 380 47 54

Propane

Dedicated . . . . . . . 44 0 0 0 0 1 7 5 0 31

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 83 13 8 0 5 19 25 9 3 1

Methanol/Ethanol

Blends

Dedicated . . . . . . . 161 0 4 3 9 58 4 16 0 67

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 120 36 47 1 1 0 9 23 2 1

Electricity

Dedicated . . . . . . . 253 43 2 0 5 14 114 5 0 70

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 12 5 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0

Other Alternative

Fuels

Dedicated ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Multifuel ......... 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

Total ................ 18,338 2,749 1,555 288 822 1,071 2,018 4,339 953 4,543

 "New" Vehicles refers to both newly acquired vehicles and existing vehicles converted to operate on a new fuel. 1

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all AFV’s capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Coal, Nuclear, Electric, and Alternative Fuels, Form EIA-861, Schedule VII, "Electric Utility Fleet

Survey."
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-39

Table 3.6.20. Fleet Vehicles Operated By Natural Gas Suppliers as of December 31, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 122,276 10,416 11,626 3,652 5,141 11,806 13,688 26,144 5,731 34,072

Gasoline .......... 104,434 10,416 11,609 3,649 5,134 11,465 13,629 25,070 5,440 18,022

Diesel ............. 17,842 0 17 3 7 341 59 1,074 291 16,050

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 16,048 585 791 335 495 3,610 1,839 5,347 638 2,408

Compressed

Natural Gas

Dedicated ....... 2,223 7 19 31 21 965 118 935 31 96

Multifuel ......... 11,809 567 756 291 447 2,505 1,612 3,464 602 1,565

Propane

Dedicated ....... 1,005 2 13 8 17 99 87 185 3 591

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 948 0 3 5 2 16 19 763 2 138

Electricity

Dedicated . . . . . . . 37 8 0 0 7 18 3 0 0 1

Multifuel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Alternative

Fuels

Dedicated . . . . . . . 26 1 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 17

Multifuel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total ................ 138,324 11,001 12,417 3,987 5,636 15,416 15,527 31,491 6,369 36,480

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all alternative-fuel vehicles capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-40 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.21. Alternative-Fuel Fleet Vehicles in Natural Gas Supplier Fleets by Source, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Source Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/

Total Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles ............... 16,048 585 791 335 495 3,610 1,839 5,347 638 2,408

Dedicated

Original Equipment .... 1,582 2 24 16 8 697 23 721 3 88

Conversion .......... 1,401 14 18 15 33 404 98 252 29 538

Multifuel

Original Equipment . . . . 55 0 1 0 0 5 0 13 5 31

Conversion .......... 13,010 569 748 304 454 2,504 1,718 4,361 601 1,751

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all alternative-fuel vehicles capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-41

Table 3.6.22. 1994 Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Retirement/Acquisition Plans

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Heavy-Duty

Fleet Vehicle Plans Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Retirements ........... 17,088 1,320 2,105 590 694 1,805 1,836 4,796 735 3,207

Gasoline ........... 14,522 1,304 2,004 530 660 1,679 1,701 4,024 686 1,934

Diesel ............. 1,334 0 34 2 9 19 1 105 23 1,141

Alternative-Fuel ...... 1,232 16 67 58 25 107 134 667 26 132

Acquisitions ........... 14,374 799 1,664 421 748 1,564 1,522 4,147 564 2,945

Conversions to AFV ..... 1,623 60 85 79 79 181 164 821 40 114

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-42 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.23. "New" Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicles Planned for Service in 19941

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Heavy-Duty

Fuel Type Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 11,374 680 1,413 363 481 949 1,183 3,212 499 2,594

Gasoline .......... 9,911 680 1,413 363 481 936 1,182 3,131 485 1,240

Diesel ............. 1,463 0 0 0 0 13 1 81 14 1,354

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles ............. 4,623 179 336 137 346 796 503 1,756 105 465

Compressed

Natural Gas

Dedicated . . . . . . . 420 6 33 23 47 213 10 61 1 26

Multifuel ......... 3,674 161 297 112 208 504 466 1,475 104 347

Propane

Dedicated . . . . . . . 197 4 0 0 89 54 5 9 0 36

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 257 0 0 2 0 0 9 196 0 50

Methanol/Ethanol

Blends

Dedicated ....... 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Flex-Fuel . . . . . . . . 23 0 0 0 0 23 0 0 0 0

Electricity

Dedicated . . . . . . . 25 8 0 0 1 1 13 0 0 2

Multifuel ......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other Alternative

Fuels

Dedicated ....... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Multifuel . . . . . . . . . 26 0 6 0 0 1 0 15 0 4

Total ................ 15,997 859 1,749 500 827 1,745 1,686 4,968 604 3,059

 "New" Vehicles refers to both newly acquired vehicles and existing vehicles converted to operate on a new fuel. 1

 Note: “Multifuel” refers to all alternative-fuel vehicles capable of operating on more than one fuel (i.e., bi-fuel, flex-fuel, hybrid, and dual-fuel vehicles).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-43

Table 3.6.24. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Fueling Locations, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Heavy-Duty

Trucks

Fuel Type and Fueling Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/

Location Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility

Conventional-Fuel

Vehicles

Company-Owned ..... 84,553 8,606 7,359 1,857 3,876 9,353 8,979 13,833 4,155 26,535

Private .............. 1,959 49 258 64 38 197 234 825 55 239

Public

Restricted .......... 4,420 337 601 103 186 353 585 1,196 108 951

Unrestricted ......... 30,950 1,420 3,315 1,628 1,026 1,789 3,808 10,231 1,411 6,322

Other ............... 394 4 93 0 15 114 82 59 2 25

Alternative-Fuel

Vehicles

Company-Owned ..... 15,044 558 739 266 476 3,464 1,801 4,827 627 2,286

Private .............. 326 1 8 2 5 48 10 193 6 53

Public

Restricted . . . . . . . . . . 78 1 0 0 2 38 5 30 0 2

Unrestricted . . . . . . . . . 589 24 44 66 11 55 22 295 5 67

Other ............... 11 1 0 1 1 5 1 2 0 0

 Note: A "restricted" location refers to the situation where the fleet fuels at a particular location under the obligation of a fuel purchase agreement. If

there is no fuel purchase agreement, the location is considered to be "unrestricted."

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-44 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.25. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Usage for Vehicles Assigned to Employees, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Medium/

Heavy-Duty

Vehicle Usage Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/

Total Vehicles .... 138,324 11,001 12,417 3,987 5,636 15,416 15,527 31,491 6,369 36,480

Business Use

Only ............ 106,177 7,827 5,992 1,321 4,236 13,511 12,603 21,530 4,553 34,604

Business Use &

Commuting ...... 22,662 1,966 3,392 1,319 977 1,723 2,323 8,225 1,279 1,458

Unrestricted Use

(Log) ........... 8,511 1,185 2,574 1,246 422 179 591 1,467 477 370

Unrestricted Use

(No Log) ......... 944 22 457 98 0 0 8 262 54 43

Other Usage ..... 30 1 2 3 1 3 2 7 6 5

 Note: "Unrestricted Use" refers to usage that includes business use, commuting, and personal use. This type of usage can be with accounting of

personal versus business use (Log) or without such accounting (No Log).

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-45

Table 3.6.26. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Daily Miles Traveled Range, 1993

(Number of Vehicles)

Vehicle Type

Miles Traveled Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

Range Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW)

(Miles per Medium/

Operating Day) Heavy-Duty

Total Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility Trucks

Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/

Total Vehicles .......... 138,324 11,001 12,417 3,987 5,636 15,416 15,527 31,491 6,369 36,480

0 to 50 ................ 75,142 6,168 6,006 1,376 2,924 7,473 8,382 12,849 3,678 26,286

51 to 100 .............. 51,512 4,631 5,550 1,671 2,224 7,023 6,280 13,456 2,098 8,579

101 to 150 ............. 7,902 166 655 509 345 754 582 3,339 457 1,095

151 to 200 ............. 2,179 21 104 90 130 130 247 1,057 100 300

201 to 300 ............. 1,117 10 89 310 8 32 34 530 32 72

More than 300 .......... 472 5 13 31 5 4 2 260 4 148

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-46 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 3.6.27. Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Vehicle Replacement Cycles, 1993

(Months and Miles)

Vehicle Type

Cycle Unit Trucks

Passenger Cars (#8,500 lbs. GVW) Medium/

Light-Duty Vans/Trucks

HeavyFleet Subcompact/ Full-Size Small Large Sport/ Duty

Average Compact Mid-Size Large Mini-Van Van Pickup Pickup Utility

Months ................ 70 67 61 57 67 72 70 69 67 93

Miles ................. 94,530 87,283 89,569 87,796 96,601 96,104 95,853 96,574 95,488 103,888

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas, Form EIA-176, Schedule B, “Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey.”
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-47

Table 3.6.28. Annual Consumption per Vehicle by Fuel and Vehicle Technology for Natural Gas Supplier Fleet

Vehicles, 1993

(Physical Units)

This Table deleted due to concern over unreliability of data.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 3-49

3.7 Data Quality

Propane Provider Fleet Survey

Unlike the Electric Utility Fleet Survey and the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey, the Propane Provider Fleet Survey

was conducted as a sample survey and, therefore, the data collected are subject to sampling and nonsampling error.

However, the sampling error will affect only portions of the data collected. The data that were collected from the top

35 providers, but not the 100 sampled companies, are not subject to sampling error because that part of the survey was

a census.

Nonsampling Error

Nonsampling errors are errors of the survey process and include both random errors and systematic errors or biases. The

magnitudes of nonsampling biases cannot be estimated from the sample data. Thus, avoidance of systematic biases is

a primary objective of all stages of survey design. Subsequent to conducting a survey, problems of unit nonresponse and

item nonresponse need to be addressed. The treatment of these types of errors in the Propane Provider Fleet Survey are

discussed below.

Unit Nonresponse

Unit nonresponse is the type of nonresponse that occurs when no data are available for a survey respondent. Most unit

nonresponse occurs when a respondent is unavailable or refuses to cooperate. There was one instance of unit

nonresponse in the top 35 providers portion of the Propane Provider Fleet Survey that was accounted for using a simple

weight adjustment. One respondent among the top 35 providers was also a respondent to the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet

Survey. In order to prevent duplication of the data collection and to reduce burden on the respondent, that particular

provider was released from the Propane Provider Fleet Survey. The remaining 33 responding providers were given a

weight of 34/33 = 1.03 to account for the nonresponding provider. Within the sample portion of the survey, there was

100 percent response.

Imputation for Item Nonresponse

There were three variables on the Propane Provider Fleet Survey that required imputation due to item nonresponse.

Those variables were fuel storage capacity, vehicle fuel consumption, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). For fuel

storage capacity, the hot-deck procedure was used to impute for missing responses. In hot-decking, when a certain

response is missing for a given respondent, another respondent, called a donor, is randomly chosen to furnish its reported

value for that missing item. The donated value is then assigned to the nonrespondent company.

Due to the complex nature of consumption and miles-traveled data, it was determined that the hot-deck procedure would

not be adequate. Therefore, missing responses for consumption and miles traveled were derived using nonmissing data

items for the nonrespondent companies along with data from outside sources. The outside data used were average fuel

economies (in miles per unit of fuel) for each fuel and each vehicle type. For those companies that did not report

consumption data, but did report VMT, the missing consumption data were imputed by dividing the reported VMT by

the appropriate fuel economy estimate.

If a respondent did not report either consumption or VMT, a more complicated derivation was necessary. First, an

average VMT per vehicle was computed from all reported values for each fuel and vehicle type. Consumption was then

imputed as gallons per vehicle by dividing the appropriate average VMT per vehicle by the appropriate fuel economy

estimate. There were two respondents who were unable to report the consumption data by vehicle type, but were able

to provide the total consumption of each fuel. For these two respondents, the consumption was first imputed as

described; the ratio was adjusted using the reported total consumption. The ratio was computed by dividing the reported
Sh

2 ' ji

(Yi & Yi)

2

nh & 1

F ' jh (

N & n

n

) Nh Sh

2

RSE ' ( F

Y

) ( 100

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

3-50 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

total consumption by the sum (over all vehicle types) of imputed consumption. Once the consumption was imputed,

those newly imputed data were used to impute VMT by multiplying the imputed consumption by the appropriate fuel

economy estimate.

Sampling Error

The random differences between the survey estimate and the true population value that occur because of the particular

sample that was selected are known as sampling errors. The average sampling error, averaged over all possible samples,

should be zero. Although the sampling error is nonzero and unknown for the particular sample chosen, the sample design

permits sampling errors to be estimated. The typical magnitude of the sampling error is measured by the “standard error”

of the estimate. Standard errors in this report are given as percents of their estimated values, that is, as relative standard

errors (RSE’s).

For a given survey statistic, Y, the relative standard error, RSE(Y) is computed as follows:

where,

n = total sample size

n = sample size in stratum h h

N = total population size, and

N = population size in stratum h. h

For this survey, there were four strata representing the four Census regions. The propane provider frame, omitting the

top 35 providers, was separated into these four strata before the sample of 100 companies was selected. The top 35

providers did not contribute to sampling error because they were in the sample with certainty. However, for determining

RSE’s, the contribution of the top 35 providers was kept in the denominator. RSE’s for applicable tables are included

in the “3.6 Detailed Tables” section.

Electric Utility Fleet Survey

Because the Electric Utility Fleet Survey was conducted as a census survey, the data collected are not subject to sampling

error. However, as with all surveys, non-sampling errors can occur. These types of errors cannot be estimated using

sample data. No adjustments for either unit or item nonresponse were performed on the data collected in the Electric

Utility Fleet Survey.

Natural Gas Suppliers Fleet

Because the Natural Gas Supplier Fleet Survey was conducted as a census survey, the data collected are not subject to

sampling error. However, as with all surveys, non-sampling errors can occur. These types of errors cannot be estimated

using sample data.
Section 4

Consumer Vehicle 

Preferences
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-3

4.1. Introduction

The major aims of this study are to analyze and summarize the results of a national telephone survey of consumer vehicle

preferences and attitudes toward alternative-fuel vehicles. The study approach, the sample design specifications, the

questionnaire, and the processing specifications were developed by students enrolled in a survey practicum course at the

University of Maryland. This course is one of the graduate degree requirements of the Joint Program in Survey Methodology

sponsored by the University of Maryland, the University of Michigan, and Westat, Inc. The professor for the course, who

oversaw all aspects of the survey, was Dr. Stanley Presser. 

The eligible population for the study consisted of telephone households in the continental United States that owned or leased

one or more motor vehicles driven on a regular basis. The respondent was the adult in the household most knowledgeable

about the use of the household’s vehicle(s). Interviewing for the survey occurred from February 17 to May 16, 1994, in the

Maryland Survey Research Center (SRC) Telephone Facility on the College Park campus. The total number of respondents

was 1,712.

Highlights

The following are selected findings, estimated by analysis of the data obtained from the Consumer Preference Survey,

concerning the consumer population.

! Eighty-seven percent use personal vehicles as their main type of transportation

! Fifty-nine percent belong to households with two persons over the age of 18

! Eighty-five percent have heard of alternative-fuel vehicles

! Sixty-two percent feel that electricity is a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline

! Seventy-seven percent are concerned about outdoor air pollution in their area

! Sixty-one percent feel that vehicle emissions are extremely or very dangerous

! Forty-eight percent consider themselves to be environmentalists

! More than one-half are willing to refuel a vehicle twice as often as usual to reduce vehicle emissions

! About one-third are willing to reduce their current trunk or cargo space by one-half in order to reduce vehicle

emissions 

In order to understand much of the data presented in this report, it is necessary to understand the design of the questionnaire

and the way in which data were collected. The next section provides this essential information.

 

Design of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire opened with an eligibility question about the number of vehicles in the household. If the household owned

or leased one or more vehicles, a question was asked to identify the adult in the household who knew most about the

vehicle(s) and how they were used. If this adult was someone other than the initial informant, this person was contacted and

the number of vehicles was asked again.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-4 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Characteristics of Vehicles to be Replaced

73% were domestic vehicles

70% were automobiles

51% were bought used

38% were 1985-1989 models

32% were 1990-1994 models

70% of consumers were very/extremely satisfied with this vehicle

61% were used by someone in the household to commute to work

44% were used to make overnight trips

The remainder of the questionnaire fell into three broad categories: 1) vehicle questions, 2) vehicle preference questions,

and 3) questions concerning attitudes about pollution and the environment.

Vehicle Questions

For households with four or fewer vehicles, the main part of the

interview began with a series of questions about each vehicle

(year, make, model, whether bought new or used, and size and

usage of trunk (cargo) space), its regular uses (whether driven

to work, school, or as part of a job, and if so, how frequently

and how far), and its special uses (overnight trips or whether

it was entered into competitions). Questions were also asked

about fueling patterns and respondent general satisfaction with

the vehicle. These questions were, for the most part, asked in

order to select the vehicle that was to serve as the vehicle to be

replaced in the vehicle preference section of the questionnaire.

Consequently, analysis of these variables is not included in this

report. The survey assumed that the least used vehicle was the

vehicle with the highest likelihood of being replaced by a

modified vehicle. 

To reduce respondent burden, the very small number of households with more than four vehicles were asked only about the

two vehicles driven the least. This was done because in the vehicle preference section the respondent was asked to choose

between a modified vehicle and the vehicle in the household used the least. For households with multiple vehicles, the least

used was defined as the one least often fueled. If a tie occurred between two vehicles, it was broken according to which had

the least used trunk space, then according to which had the fewest overnight trips, and then by random selection.

Estimates for vehicle preference questions may include bias because of the sample’s design. Bias may have been introduced

in one of two ways. First, while the least-used household vehicle seems a plausible choice as the most likely vehicle to be

a candidate for replacement by a modified vehicle, no data are available to support this conclusion. The household vehicle

chosen for the vehicle preference questions might not have been the vehicle that the respondent would have chosen if given

the choice. Therefore, with respect to the vehicle population, the study cannot claim to represent preferences over the entire

stock, or even over the subset of vehicles most likely to be replaced by modified vehicles. The population that is covered

can be described most accurately as the subpopulation of least-used vehicles in U.S. households. Second, the respondent

may not have been the most appropriate person to make decisions about the vehicle addressed in the questionnaire. The

respondents were chosen on the basis of their knowledge of all the household vehicles, not on the basis of whether or not

they were directly responsible for the upkeep and operation of the least-used vehicle. Consequently, the respondent may not

have been the household member who was the main driver of the vehicle to be replaced or the member in the position to

make purchasing decisions regarding the vehicle. Likewise, the personal characteristics, opinions, and concerns for the

environment are those of the respondent and not the main driver of the vehicle to be replaced, except where otherwise stated.

This population would most closely represent the subpopulation of most vehicle-knowledgeable persons in U.S. households.

With these caveats in mind, some national estimates based on responses about households’ least-used vehicles are given

below. 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-5

Vehicle Preference Questions

The respondent was asked a series of hypothetical choice questions between a new model of the household’s least-used

vehicle and a less-polluting modified vehicle that was identical to the regular vehicle except for certain limitations or

“penalty” characteristics. The limitations of the modified vehicle are similar to those currently associated with alternativefuel vehicles (AFV) and imply behavioral changes for the operator. The questionnaire contained three scenarios:

1. The modified vehicle has only one-half the trunk (cargo) space of the regular vehicle.

2. The respondent must drive 15 minutes out of the way to buy fuel for the modified vehicle.

3. The modified vehicle must be refueled twice as often as the regular vehicle.

Respondents were asked to choose which vehicle they would purchase, given each limitation individually and in combination.

Within each individual scenario, respondents who said they would choose the modified vehicle were asked which they would

choose if the modified vehicle cost $1,000 more than the regular vehicle. Respondents who chose the regular vehicle were

asked which they would choose if the modified vehicle was $1,000 less than the regular vehicle. Figure4.1.1 illustrates the

flow of the vehicle preference section of the questionnaire. In the figure, “M” means that the respondent chose the modified

vehicle. “R” means that they chose the regular vehicle.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-6 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 4.1.1. Flow Chart of the Questionnaire

One-half Trunk/Cargo

Space

R M

15 Minutes Out of the Vehicle Vehicle

Way for Fuel Costs Costs Refuel Twice as Often

Modified Modified

$1,000 $1,000

Less More

RM M R

Modified Modified Modified Modified

Vehicle Vehicle One-half One-half Vehicle Vehicle

Costs Costs Trunk Trunk Costs Costs

$1,000 $1,000 (Cargo) (Cargo) $1,000 $1,000

Less More Space Space More Less

15 Minutes Out of the Way

for Fuel and Refuel Twice

as Often R

M Vehicle

Modified

Costs

$1,000

Less

15 Minutes Out of the Way

for Fuel, Refuel Twice as

Often and One-half

Trunk/Cargo Space

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Additionally, for a random half-sample, the modified vehicle was described as producing half as much air pollution as a

regular vehicle; for the other half, the modified vehicle was described as producing no air pollution. Although the two

categories were general, the modified vehicle that produced no air pollution was intended to represent electric-powered

vehicles. The vehicle that produced half as much air pollution as a regular vehicle represented other alternative-fuel

vehicles, such as those powered by natural gas, propane, and other non-petroleum fuels. 

Attitudinal Questions

The final section of the questionnaire measured respondent awareness of AFV’s and attitudes about air pollution and

environmentalism. Questions included ascertained: (1) whether and to what extent respondents had heard of alternative-fuel

vehicles, (2) respondents’ perception of the relative safety of alternative fuels to gasoline, (3) respondents’ concerns about

air pollution in their area, and (4) whether and to what extent respondents considered themselves environmentalists.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-7

Organization of this Report

 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 address three general topics: (1) consumer characteristics and their general attitudes and concerns

about air pollution, (2) prospective vehicle purchasers’ receptiveness to behavioral changes they might have to make to

operate an alternative-fuel vehicle, and (3) price differentials between conventional vehicles and alternative-fuel vehicles

that consumers will accept in making purchasing decisions. The detailed tables for the survey are found in section 4.4.

Section 4.5 contains the relative standard errors for the estimates found throughout this section of the report. Data quality

and methodology issues are briefly discussed in section 4.6.
33

27

35

37

31

67

73

65

63

69

Total

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Census Region

100 0 20 40 60 80 100 80 60 40 20 0

Less than $30,000 $30,000 or More

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program 

in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle Preference Survey.

Percent

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

AAA

39 42 37 38 39

42 39 45 43 42

12 15 11 12 12

7 5 7 8 8

Total Northeast Midwest South West

Census Region

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent

One Two Three AAA Four or More AAA

Note: Percents may not sum to 100 due to rounding.

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program 

in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle Preference Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-9

Figure 4.2.1. Household Annual Income by Census

Region

Figure 4.2.2. Number of Vehicles by Census Region

4.2. Consumer Characteristics, Awareness,

and Concerns

The Consumer Preference Survey contained questions to learn respondent demographic characteristics, consumer knowledge

of alternative-fuel vehicles, perception of the relative safety of alternative fuels, and general concerns for the environment.

 

Consumer Characteristics

The Consumer Preference Survey found that 39

percent of the telephone household population has one

household vehicle, 42 percent has two, 12 percent has

three, and 7 percent has four or more. Sixty-seven

percent of the population has an average annual

household income of $30,000 or more. For these

households, nearly 75 percent owned two or more

vehicles. In contrast, 64 percent of households with

annual income of less than $30,000 owned only one

vehicle. 

Nineteen percent of the population lives in the

Northeast, 25 percent in the Midwest, 35 percent in

the South, and 21 percent in the West. Within each

Census Region the household annual income is

distributed as shown in Figure 4.2.1. The Northeast

has the highest percentage of people earning $30,000

or more annually, and the South has the highest

percentage of people who earn less than $30,000.

Most households have one or two vehicles (about 80

percent). The distribution of the number of vehicles is

shown in Figure 4.2.2.
26

49

15

9

63

28

5 3

39

42

12

7

One Two Three Four or More

Number of Vehicles

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Annual Income

Total

Less Than $30,000

$30,000 or More

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program 

in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle Preference Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-10 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Figure 4.2.3. Household Annual Income by Number of 

Vehicles

Consumer Characteristics

87% used personal vehicles as their main type of transportation

67% had household income greater than $30,000

69% lived in single-family detached homes

86% had high school or college education

59% belonged to household with two persons over 18 years of age

85% were white

Consumer Awareness and Opinions

85% had heard of alternative-fuel vehicles

18% felt that natural gas was a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline

29% felt that gasoline was a safer vehicle fuel than natural gas

11% felt that propane was a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline

41% felt that gasoline was a safer vehicle fuel than propane

62% felt that electricity was a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline

12% felt that gasoline was a safer vehicle fuel than electricity 

The relationship between the number of vehicles and annual income in households is shown in Figure 4.2.3.

Other consumer characteristic estimates are given below.

Consumer Awareness

Most consumers (85 percent) had heard of alternative-fuel vehicles, although only slightly more than one-half of the

population knew more than “just a little” about them. By far, the perception of fuel safety of alternative fuels was strongest

for electricity, with 62 percent stating it was a safer vehicle fuel than gasoline. The following summarizes consumers’

awareness of alternative-fuel vehicles and opinions of the relative safety of alternative fuels. 
53

55

49

50

62

47

45

51

50

38

Total

Northeast

Midwest

South

West

Census Region

100 0 20 40 60 80 100 80 60 40 20 0

Extremely/Very Somewhat/Not at All

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program 

in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle Preference Survey.

Percent

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-11

Figure 4.2.4. Level of Concern for the Environment by 

Census Region

Consumer Concern for Environment

77% were concerned about outdoor air pollution in their area

Of these, 53% were extremely/very concerned 

61% feel that vehicle emissions are extremely/very dangerous

48% consider themselves to be environmentalists 

Consumer Concern

Concern for the environment was greatest in the Northeast and West Census regions (Figure 4.2.4).

Overall, consumers are concerned about the environment and consider themselves environmentalists; however, of the 48

percent who consider themselves environmentalists, only 22 percent are members of any environmental organization. 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-13

4.3. Consumer Receptiveness to Behavioral 

Changes and Price Differentials

Respondents were asked whether they would purchase a new model of the household’s least used vehicle, or a less-polluting

modified vehicle (AFV) identical to the regular vehicle except for certain limitations that might require respondents to

change their normal behavior associated with operating a vehicle. Three simple cases were first addressed: the modified

vehicle would have only half the trunk space of the regular vehicle; the modified vehicle would require refueling at a station

that was 15 minutes out of the way for the respondent; and, the modified vehicle would need to be refueled twice as often

as the regular vehicle. If the respondent answered that they would choose the modified vehicle with the single limitation

over the regular vehicle, then they were asked about their vehicle choice if the modified vehicle had any combination of these

same three limitations. Additionally, in all the single limitation scenarios, respondents were asked a question regarding the

price of the modified vehicle to learn if a $1,000 difference in price would influence the respondents’ original vehicle

preference. Respondents who had chosen the regular vehicle were asked their preference if the modified vehicle cost $1,000

less. Respondents who chose the modified vehicle were asked their preference if the modified vehicle cost $1,000 more.

Single Vehicle Limitations

The following table presents consumer vehicle preferences, expressed in percents, when given three possible modified

vehicle limitations.

Table 4.3.1. Overview of Vehicle Preference by Modified Vehicle Limitations, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Vehicle Limitation Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don’t Know Regular Modified Don’t

One-half Trunk (Cargo) 60 33 Q 55 35 Q

Space .................

15 Minutes Out of the Way

to Refuel .............. 55 41 Q 44 51 Q

Refuel Twice as Often . . . 42 54 Q 37 57 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Between the two options of giving up one-half of the trunk (cargo) space of a regular vehicle and having to refuel the

modified vehicle twice as often, consumers in both pollution level groups were clearly more willing to refuel more often.

Twenty-one percent more consumers were willing to refuel twice as often than were willing to give up trunk space when

the modified vehicle polluted half as much as a regular vehicle, 22 percent more if the modified vehicle did not pollute at

all. Not much can be said, however, concerning consumer willingness to drive 15 minutes out of the way to refuel in

comparison to the other two options. The differences were statistically insignificant. 

With one exception, within each limitation scenario, differences among the pollution level groups’ vehicle choice were

statistically insignificant. The exception occurred when the respondent had to drive 15 minutes out of the way to refuel the
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-14 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

modified vehicle. Eleven percent fewer respondents chose the regular vehicle if the modified vehicle did not pollute than

if it polluted half as much as a regular vehicle.

The following sections look at the behavioral changes and the effect of price differentials on vehicle choice associated with

each of the vehicle limitations.

Giving Up Trunk Space

Potential vehicle purchasers were most reluctant to give up half the amount of trunk (cargo) space of their current vehicle

even if it meant halving or eliminating the pollution produced in operating a vehicle. Vehicle choice was related to the size

of the trunk of the consumer’s current vehicle (Table 4.3.2). 

Table 4.3.2. Vehicle Preference Regarding Loss of One-Half Trunk Space, by Size of Current Vehicle

Trunk, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Trunk Size Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Large .............. 58 34 Q 48 40 Q

Medium ............ 65 Q Q 54 Q Q

Small .............. 44 51 Q Q 60 Q

No Trunk ........... 66 29 Q 71 Q Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

As expected, those who currently had large or medium-sized trunks were less willing to replace their vehicle with one with

only one-half the trunk space no matter how much pollution was reduced. This result suggests that a large trunk may have

been an important factor in the purchasing decision of their current vehicle, and it continued to be a deciding factor in the

selection of a new vehicle. Consumers whose current vehicles had small trunks were more likely to choose the modified

vehicle, perhaps because trunk space was not as important as other considerations in their vehicle-purchasing decision. 

A result that appears surprising is that the majority of respondents who reported that their current vehicle had no trunk at

all were unwilling to buy the modified vehicle. The explanation lies in the wording of the trunk size and preference

questions. The question concerning current vehicle trunk size was asked about the space contained in the trunk of the vehicle

alone, while the vehicle preference question included both trunk space and cargo space. Therefore, a respondent who

answered that the current vehicle had no trunk most often had a truck, van, station-wagon, or sport-utility vehicle; all have

cargo space but no trunk. In fact, about 70 percent of those who stated that their current vehicle had no trunk were referring

to one of these types of vehicles. Since these vehicles are often purchased for their hauling capacity, it makes sense that

reducing the cargo space by one-half would not be a compromise many would be willing to make. For those respondents

who were not referring to one of these types of vehicles (30 percent), it is feasible that they were referring to an automobile

with a hatchback or whose back seat was used for cargo rather than passengers. It could also be that the respondent simply

would not purchase another vehicle without a trunk or other cargo space again. 

Price Differential. In both price cases, trunk (cargo) space seemed more important to consumers than $1,000. Consumers

who were willing to give up trunk (cargo) space were not willing to pay $1,000 extra to do so. The question of how much

pollution was reduced had little impact (Table 4.3.3). Consumers who chose the regular vehicle originally were not swayed
41 39 40

43 41

51

56

45 45

61

Total Northeast Midwest South West

Census Region

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Pollution Level

Half Pollution No Pollution

Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program 

in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle Preference Survey.

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-15

Figure 4.3.1. Consumers Willing to Drive 15 Minutes Out of 

the Way to Refuel by Census Region

to choose the modified vehicle by $1,000. The price reduction was little incentive to accept the reduction in trunk space for

most people (Table 4.3.3). 

Table 4.3.3. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Differential Cost of Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Modified Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

$1,000 More ............ 68 26 Q 69 27 Q

$1,000 Less ........... 88 Q Q 79 Q Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Driving 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

Respondents were nearly equally divided about

whether they were willing to drive a short

distance out of their way for fuel in order to

drive a vehicle that pollutes less. Unlike giving

up trunk space, willingness to purchase the

modified vehicle did differ between the two

pollution levels of the modified vehicle. Fortyone percent of the group given the halfpolluting modified vehicle scenario and 51

percent of the non-polluting vehicle group were

willing to travel 15 minutes out of their way.

Consumers offered a vehicle that did not pollute

at all chose the modified vehicle at a higher rate

than those who were offered a vehicle that

polluted only half as much. This trend was

especially strong among respondents who live

in the West or the Northeast. Figure 4.3.1

illustrates the difference between the two

groups by Census region. 

Respondents’ willingness to drive 15 minutes out of the way to refuel did not appear to be affected by their usual frequency

of gas purchase (Table 4.3.4). 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-16 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.3.4. Willingness to Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel by Frequency of Usual Gas

Purchase, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Frequency of Gas Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Purchase Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Less than Once a 58 38 Q 45 51 Q

Week ..............

Once a Week ........ 53 43 Q 42 51 Q

More than Once a

Week .............. 52 46 Q 45 46 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Price Differential. Nearly one-third of respondents who chose the regular vehicle over the modified vehicle that has to be

driven 15 minutes out of the way to refuel said they would choose the modified vehicle if it cost $1,000 less. There was

practically no difference among the pollution-reduction level groups (Table 4.3.5).

On the other hand, when those who originally chose the modified vehicle were asked if they would pay an additional $1,000

for the vehicle, over one-third said they would not. A larger percentage of potential consumers was “lost” because of a price

increase than was “gained” from a price decrease (Table 4.3.5).

Table 4.3.5. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Differential Cost of Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Modified Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

$1,000 More ............ 40 54 Q 33 61 Q

$1,000 Less ........... 68 29 Q 68 26 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Refueling Twice as Often

Of the limitations specified in this study for the modified vehicle, the one that respondents seemed most willing to accept

in order to reduce the amount of pollution emitted was refueling twice as often. More than half chose the modified vehicle,

54 percent among those offered a vehicle polluting half as much, and 57 percent among those offered the choice of a

nonpolluting vehicle. Frequency of regular fuel purchases affected willingness to purchase the modified vehicle only

minimally (Table 4.3.6). In the non-polluting modified vehicle cases, people who fueled once a week or more were more

willing to refuel twice as often than those who refueled less than once a week.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-17

Table 4.3.6. Willingness Refuel Twice as Often by Frequency of Usual Gas Purchase, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Frequency of Gas Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Purchase Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Less than Once a 40 55 Q 39 53 Q

Week ..............

Once a Week ........ 41 54 Q 33 61 Q

More than Once a

Week .............. 47 52 Q 40 56 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Price Differential. The price differential affected the original purchasing decision in much the same way as it affected the

scenario requiring drivers to drive 15 minutes out of the way to refuel. The $1,000 price increase persuaded more people

to change their choice from the modified vehicle to the regular one than the $1,000 price decrease persuaded people to

choose the modified vehicle after choosing the regular one (Table 4.3.7 ). 

Table 4.3.7. Vehicle Preference Incorporating Price Differential Based on Original Vehicle Choice, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much as

Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Differential Cost of Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

Modified Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

$1,000 More ............ 37 56 Q 31 63 Q

$1,000 Less ........... 67 25 Q 72 22 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

Combinations of Vehicle Limitations

Table 4.3.8 presents vehicle preference estimates given different combinations of vehicle limitations. Only those who

responded that they would choose the modified vehicle given the single limitation were asked about combinations of

limitations. Therefore, the populations these estimates represent are depleted populations of the total (Figure 4.1.1). 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-18 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.3.8. Overview of Vehicle Preference by Combinations of Modified Vehicle Limitations for

Depleted Populations, 1994

(Percent)

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Vehicle Limitation Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don’t Regular Modified Don’t

15 Minutes Out of the Way and

One-half Trunk (Cargo) Space 49 48 Q 52 45 Q

Refuel Twice as Often and Onehalf Trunk (Cargo) Space .... 51 47 Q 46 52 Q

15 Minutes Out of the Way and

Refuel Twice as Often ....... 24 75 Q 20 76 Q

15 Minutes Out of the Way,

Refuel Twice as Often and Onehalf Trunk (Cargo) Space .... 38 61 Q 34 62 Q

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.

The addition of limited trunk or cargo space in the modified vehicle lost, by far, the largest proportion of consumers willing

to purchase a modified vehicle. How much pollution reduction the modified vehicle attained seemed to make little difference

in vehicle choice.

Consumers who were willing to drive 15 minutes out of the way and refuel twice as often individually, were usually willing

to do so in combination (75 percent and 76 percent). Of these, the addition of the loss of trunk (cargo) space lost a somewhat

smaller proportion of people willing to buy the modified vehicle than in the double combinations involving trunk (cargo)

space.

Conclusions

Overall, consumers seem fairly willing to accept vehicles with characteristics of alternative-fuel vehicles. The scenarios of

having to drive 15 minutes out of the way to fuel the modified vehicle and having to refuel the modified vehicle twice as often

gained wider acceptance than the scenario in which trunk (cargo) space was reduced. Perhaps, this suggests that particular

attention should be paid to solving the problem of limited trunk (cargo) space associated with those AFV’s that require a

great amount of space for fuel storage. There seemed to be a difference in vehicle preference when a price differential was

introduced. More respondents were dissuaded from purchasing the modified vehicle if it cost $1,000 more than were

persuaded to purchase the modified vehicle if it cost $1,000 less. For the most part, consumer preferences were not affected

by how much pollution was reduced. 
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-19

4.4. Detailed Tables
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-20 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.1. Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern for the Environment, 1994

(Percent) 

Level of Concern for Environment

Consumer Characteristic Consumers Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned

All Extremely Very Somewhat Not Too

Total ........................... 100 100 100 100 100

Census Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 25 20 19 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 23 20 25 27

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 28 33 38 33

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 24 28 18 Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 42 45 45 52

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 58 55 55 48

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Q Q Q Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 20 22 24 27

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 28 27 26 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20 17 20 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 26 25 22 33

Education of Respondent

 Elementary ..................... Q Q Q Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 39 37 42 55

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 48 46 46 31

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Q 15 12 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 78 81 86 81

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Q 11 Q Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Q Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Q Q Q Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 31 31 30 36

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 69 69 70 64

Perception of Relative Safety of 

Fuels

 Natural Gas

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 25 30 28 Q

 Natural Gas Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20 19 16 Q

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 32 28 30 32

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 23 23 26 34

 Propane

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 39 39 44 37

 Propane Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Q 12 10 Q

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 27 31 26 29

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 17 20 25

 Electricity

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Q Q 12 Q

 Electricity Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 55 69 62 52

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 17 12 12 Q

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Q 10 14 Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-21

Table 4.4.1. Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern for the Environment, 1994 (Continued)

(Percent) 

Level of Concern for Environment

Consumer Characteristic Consumers Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned

All Extremely Very Somewhat Not Too

Total ........................... 100 100 100 100 100

Heard of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16 13 14 Q

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 84 87 86 83

 How Much Heard About 

 Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

 Great Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 42 33 22 Q

 Some . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 21 35 36 29

 Little . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 35 30 42 46

How Dangerous is Pollution Caused

by Motor Vehicles

 Extremely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 63 34 15 Q

 Very . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 26 47 39 Q

 Somewhat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Q 16 41 47

 Not Very ....................... Q Q Q Q Q

 Not at All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC Q Q Q

 Don’t Know ..................... Q Q Q Q Q

Are You an Environmentalist

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 32 39 59 65

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 66 60 39 35

 Member of Environmental

 Organization

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 74 81 76 Q

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Q Q Q NC

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-22 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.2. Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994

(Percent)

Census Region

Consumer Characteristic All Consumers Northeast Midwest South West

Total .......................... 100 100 100 100 100

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 46 48 42 48

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 54 52 58 52

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Q Q Q Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 21 21 23 23

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 20 28 22 27

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 17 18 16

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29 27 29 24

Education of Respondent

 Elementary .................... Q Q Q Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 43 42 42 40

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 43 45 45 42

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13 10 10 15

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 87 93 80 80

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Q Q 16 Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q Q

Number of Adults Over 18

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 21 23 20 27

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 53 62 62 54

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 14 Q 13 14

 Four ......................... Q Q Q Q Q

 Five .......................... Q Q Q Q Q

 Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q NC Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 27 35 37 31

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 73 65 63 69

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 13 15 13 20

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 69 28 73 70 65

 Townhouse .................... Q Q Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Q 10 12 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation ............ Q Q Q Q Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 81 91 86 88

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 15 12 15

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 38 34 38 47

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 42 40 45 46 33

 Not too Concerned .............. Q Q Q Q Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-23

Table 4.4.2. Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Census Region

Consumer Characteristic All Consumers Northeast Midwest South West

Total .......................... 100 100 100 100 100

Perception of Relative Safety of

Fuels

 Natural Gas

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31 31 29 24

 Natural Gas Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 19 15 18 19

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 25 31 29 29

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 25 23 24 28

 Propane

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 45 43 40 38

 Propane Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Q 10 13 Q

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 25 28 27 30

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 19 20 20

 Electricity

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 11 15 Q

 Electricity Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 62 62 57 68

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Q 14 14 Q

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 13 13 15 14

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-24 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.3. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 60 33 Q 55 35 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 42 Q 46 41 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 24 Q 54 41 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 33 Q 55 32 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 35 Q 62 Q Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 27 Q 58 28 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 35 Q 46 43 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 46 Q 63 37 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q 67 Q NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 29 Q 58 33 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 36 Q 52 36 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Q NC Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 49 Q 58 40 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 37 Q 52 42 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q Q 49 41 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 23 Q 57 25 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary .................... QQQQQQ

 High School 63 31 Q 58 35 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 39 Q 51 37 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Q NC 59 Q Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 33 Q 53 36 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 37 NC 68 Q Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 27 Q 55 34 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 36 Q 55 35 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 40 Q 49 44 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 63 30 Q 59 34 Q

 Townhouse .................... Q Q Q Q NC Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Q Q Q Q Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 34 Q 56 33 Q

 Both ......................... Q Q Q Q Q NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-25

Table 4.4.3. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

 (Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 60 33 Q 55 35 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Q Q Q Q Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 41 Q 58 Q Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 58 34 Q 53 41 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Q Q Q Q Q

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 34 Q 48 40 Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q 54 Q Q

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 51 Q Q 60 Q

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 29 Q 71 Q Q

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 31 Q 64 26 Q

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Q NC 67 Q Q

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 35 Q 82 Q Q

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 33 Q 68 Q Q

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Q Q 52 46 Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 36 Q 46 42 Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 36 NC 73 Q Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 32 Q 34 Q Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 67 28 Q 55 33 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 39 Q 52 35 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 69 28 Q 60 40 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 32 Q 46 49 Q

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 33 Q 56 33 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-26 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.4. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 68 26 Q 69 27 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Q Q 64 Q NC

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Q Q 67 Q NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q 69 Q Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Q Q 79 Q Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q 65 Q Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Q NC 80 Q NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 37 Q 55 38 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Q Q 78 Q Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Q Q 58 Q NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Q Q 72 Q Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q 81 Q NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Q Q 62 Q Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC NC Q NC

 High School 67 Q Q 77 Q Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Q Q 65 Q Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 23 Q 65 30 Q

 Black ......................... Q Q Q Q NC NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Q Q 89 Q NC

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 27 Q 55 37 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Q Q 95 NC Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 60 34 Q 58 32 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q NC NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 25 Q 75 Q Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q Q NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-27

Table 4.4.4. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 68 26 Q 69 27 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Q Q Q Q Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Q Q 63 Q Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. Q Q Q Q Q NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 33 Q 60 35 Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC Q Q Q Q

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Q Q 63 Q Q

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 Q Q 87 Q NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q 57 Q Q

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q NC Q Q

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Q Q Q Q Q

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Q Q 72 Q Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Q NC Q Q NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Q Q Q Q Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 77 Q Q 59 37 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Q Q 82 Q Q

 More than Once a Week .......... QQQQQQ

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q Q 84 Q Q

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 28 Q 65 31 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s .

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-28 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.5. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 88 Q Q 79 Q Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Q NC 73 Q NC

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q Q 80 Q Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Q Q 83 Q Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Q Q 75 Q Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Q Q 71 Q Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 92 Q Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q NC 77 Q NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 NC Q 85 Q Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 87 Q Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Q Q 73 Q Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQQQQQ

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Q Q 82 Q NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Q NC 97 NC Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 76 Q NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Q Q 73 Q Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q Q NC

 High School 84 Q Q 78 Q Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Q Q 83 Q Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q Q Q Q Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q Q 82 Q Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Q NC 77 Q Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Q Q 76 Q Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Q Q 82 Q Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Q Q 72 Q NC

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q Q 79 Q Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 NC NC Q NC NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q Q 76 Q Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC Q NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-29

Table 4.4.5. Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 88 Q Q 79 Q Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Q NC 68 Q Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Q Q 89 Q Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 NC NC Q Q Q

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Q Q 73 Q Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Q Q 75 Q NC

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q Q 91 NC Q

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q Q 85 Q NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q Q 78 Q Q

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 NC Q Q NC Q

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Q NC Q Q NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q Q 83 Q NC

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Q NC 87 Q NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Q Q 81 Q Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Q Q 82 Q Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 69 Q Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 83 Q Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 79 Q Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 74 Q NC 69 Q NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q Q 74 Q NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q Q 80 Q Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-30 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.6. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, 1994

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Buy Fuel

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 55 41 Q 44 51 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 39 Q 39 56 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 40 Q 50 45 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 43 Q 48 45 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 41 Q 36 61 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 42 Q 42 51 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 37 Q 45 49 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 Q 44 53 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 51 Q 51 48 Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 40 Q 43 54 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 42 Q 45 48 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 Q 38 53 Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 44 Q 45 50 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 44 Q 39 58 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 43 Q 45 50 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 32 Q 47 45 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Q Q Q Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 37 Q 48 47 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 45 Q 43 51 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 42 Q 33 64 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 40 Q 43 51 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 48 Q 47 47 Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 49 Q 46 48 Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 42 Q 44 48 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 41 Q 44 52 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 48 Q 35 56 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 58 38 Q 49 47 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 44 Q 35 64 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 50 Q 29 59 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q 39 57 Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 39 Q 45 49 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 44 Q 32 61 Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

 Don't Know .................... QQQQQQ

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-31

Table 4.4.6. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Buy Fuel

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 55 41 Q 44 51 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 56 Q 28 68 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 Q 36 59 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 56 42 Q 48 47 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Q Q 52 48 NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 58 38 Q 45 51 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 43 Q 42 51 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 52 46 Q 45 46 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 38 Q 41 52 Q

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 42 Q 44 50 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-32 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.7. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 40 54 Q 33 61 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 45 Q 28 65 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 52 Q 35 61 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 55 Q 34 60 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 62 Q 37 59 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 53 Q 35 59 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 51 Q 32 62 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 55 Q 31 67 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 67 Q 35 53 Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 54 Q 37 56 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 53 Q 30 66 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 68 NC Q 60 Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 57 Q 38 61 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 49 Q 27 68 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 Q 33 64 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 54 Q 36 51 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 61 Q 31 63 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 50 Q 33 63 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 42 NC 35 57 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 52 Q 33 60 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 60 Q 35 65 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 67 Q Q 55 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 48 Q 34 61 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 57 Q 33 61 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 53 Q 41 56 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 40 54 Q 34 60 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q 82 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 51 Q 33 63 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation ............ Q Q Q Q 73 Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 53 Q 34 60 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 56 Q 34 64 Q

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-33

Table 4.4.7. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 40 54 Q 33 61 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 62 Q Q 87 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 63 Q 24 68 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 Q 44 53 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. QQQQQQ

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 39 58 Q 35 60 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 53 Q 33 61 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 49 48 Q 28 65 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 44 Q 45 48 Q

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 55 Q 32 63 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-34 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.8. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 68 29 Q 68 26 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 30 Q 53 37 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 23 Q 73 24 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 29 Q 72 24 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 36 Q 68 Q Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 29 Q 62 30 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 29 Q 69 26 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 30 Q 76 Q Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Q NC 79 Q NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 31 Q 72 25 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 28 Q 65 27 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 47 Q 53 Q Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 31 Q 72 24 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 28 Q 71 24 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Q Q 66 28 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 29 Q 67 23 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary .................... Q Q Q Q Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 26 Q 64 33 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 33 Q 74 18 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Q Q 64 Q Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 29 Q 70 23 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Q NC 53 41 Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Q NC Q Q Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 28 Q 61 34 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 30 Q 71 22 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 29 Q 58 40 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 67 29 Q 70 24 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Q Q 72 Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 36 Q 60 Q Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 30 Q 68 27 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Q Q 58 Q Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-35

Table 4.4.8. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 68 29 Q 68 26 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Q Q 72 Q Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 29 Q 62 34 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 65 30 Q 71 22 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Q Q 66 Q NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 64 30 Q 69 24 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 31 Q 67 28 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 77 Q Q 69 Q Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 29 Q 80 Q NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 29 Q 67 27 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-36 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.9. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Modified Vehicle Must be Fueled Twice as Often 

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 42 54 Q 37 57 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 58 Q 33 60 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 53 Q 42 55 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 49 Q 36 58 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 61 Q 36 55 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 52 Q 39 53 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 55 Q 33 61 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 51 Q 36 63 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 62 Q 42 51 Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 51 Q 37 58 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 57 Q 36 56 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 67 Q Q 78 Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 54 Q 37 60 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 63 Q 31 65 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 54 Q 33 58 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 42 Q 48 42 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 40 NC 50 Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 44 Q 41 54 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 65 Q 36 57 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 56 Q 24 71 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 54 Q 36 57 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 44 Q 45 52 Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 83 Q Q 57 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 68 Q Q 65 Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 Q 40 53 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 58 Q 35 59 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 58 Q 37 58 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 43 53 Q 38 56 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 61 Q Q 67 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 56 Q 31 61 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC 36 60 Q

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 53 Q 37 56 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 61 Q 25 69 Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q Q NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-37

Table 4.4.9. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often

as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Modified Vehicle Must be Fueled Twice as Often 

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 42 54 Q 37 57 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 72 Q Q 79 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 63 Q 26 68 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 38 58 Q 41 52 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 40 Q 57 41 Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 40 55 Q 39 53 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 54 Q 33 61 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 47 52 Q 40 56 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 46 Q 37 56 Q

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 56 Q 36 57 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-38 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.10. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 

(Percent) 

Must Refuel Twice as Often and Vehicle Cost $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 37 56 Q 31 63 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 62 Q 24 70 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 49 Q 31 62 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 51 Q 33 60 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 64 Q 32 61 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 54 Q 29 63 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 56 Q 34 59 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 59 Q 26 73 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 57 Q Q 73 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 53 Q 36 59 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 57 Q 26 67 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 67 NC 36 57 Q

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 56 Q 30 68 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 56 Q 24 73 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 54 Q 35 60 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 49 Q 34 50 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 59 Q 29 61 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 53 Q 32 64 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 51 Q 25 71 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 52 Q 33 61 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 65 Q Q 70 Q

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 81 NC NC 87 Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 48 Q 31 63 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 59 Q 31 63 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 54 Q 37 57 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 35 56 Q 31 63 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 63 NC Q 65 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 51 Q Q 70 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation ............ Q Q Q Q 72 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 56 Q 31 62 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 58 Q Q 65 Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC Q NC

 Don't Know .................... QQQQQQ

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-39

Table 4.4.10. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Refuel Twice as Often and Vehicle Cost $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 37 56 Q 31 63 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 78 Q Q 80 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 66 Q 22 71 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 50 42 Q 40 56 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. QQQQQQ

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 34 58 Q 36 59 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 55 Q 25 69 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 42 49 Q 35 56 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 52 Q 31 69 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 56 Q 31 62 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-40 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.11. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often but Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 67 25 Q 72 22 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 38 Q 62 36 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 20 Q 66 24 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 20 Q 77 21 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 35 Q 80 Q Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 27 Q 74 20 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 23 Q 73 22 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q Q 59 34 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Q Q 77 Q Q

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 21 Q 81 Q Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 30 Q 64 30 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 49 NC Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 32 Q 77 Q Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 23 Q 77 Q Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 29 Q 65 34 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Q Q 69 22 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Q Q Q Q Q

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 25 Q 71 24 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 27 Q 73 20 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Q Q 73 Q Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 26 Q 71 23 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Q Q 72 Q NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q NC Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Q Q Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 22 Q 73 21 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 28 Q 71 23 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 34 Q 80 Q Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 70 22 Q 70 22 Q

 Townhouse .................... Q Q Q Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 37 Q 64 36 NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 26 Q 71 22 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Q NC 76 Q Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-41

Table 4.4.11. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often but Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 67 25 Q 72 22 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 47 Q 82 Q NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 24 Q 78 Q Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 64 26 Q 77 18 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Q NC Q Q Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 66 24 Q 67 23 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 26 Q 75 22 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 69 Q Q 79 Q Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 33 Q 79 Q NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 24 Q 71 22 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-42 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.12. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 49 48 Q 52 45 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Q NC 54 39 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 60 NC 47 50 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 44 Q 54 44 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 54 Q 49 49 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 56 Q 50 48 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 44 Q 53 40 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Q NC Q Q NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 48 Q 50 45 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 49 Q 54 45 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 43 Q 56 41 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 65 NC 62 38 NC

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Q NC 58 42 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 50 Q 44 48 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 48 Q 42 55 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 48 NC 57 38 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q 63 Q NC

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 46 Q 41 45 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC 61 Q NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 69 Q 37 58 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 37 Q 59 38 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 60 Q 45 50 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 51 47 Q 53 43 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 47 Q 58 Q NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 46 Q 53 42 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-43

Table 4.4.12. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 49 48 Q 52 45 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned ............ Q Q Q Q Q NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 52 NC 41 54 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 50 50 NC 62 33 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. Q Q Q Q Q NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 19 Q 48 50 Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q 53 Q Q

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 45 Q 56 42 Q

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 47 Q 59 40 Q

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC 67 Q NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 42 Q 58 42 NC

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 67 Q 55 40 Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 51 NC 46 48 Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Q Q 57 43 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 39 NC 62 Q NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 55 43 Q 54 45 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 54 Q 47 46 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 52 45 Q 60 Q NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 57 Q Q 61 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 46 Q 54 43 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-44 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.13. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 51 47 Q 46 52 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 49 Q 46 51 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 62 Q 50 46 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 46 Q 44 54 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 32 NC 44 56 NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 Q 50 48 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 48 Q 44 53 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 52 Q 49 51 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Q NC Q 66 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 Q 54 45 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 48 Q 39 57 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 65 NC Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 56 Q 45 52 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 47 NC 49 47 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 31 Q 40 60 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 44 Q 43 53 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 47 Q 42 53 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 48 Q 49 49 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 43 Q 43 57 NC

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 44 Q 47 50 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 93 NC Q 54 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q Q Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 Q 38 57 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 47 Q 49 50 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 46 NC Q 58 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 51 46 Q 48 51 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 61 Q Q 62 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 47 Q 47 51 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC Q NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC Q NC NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-45

Table 4.4.13. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel Modified Vehicle Twice as Often as a

Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 51 47 Q 46 52 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 58 Q 41 49 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 42 Q 43 57 NC

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 57 41 Q 48 50 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. Q Q Q Q Q NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 69 Q 28 69 Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 48 Q 57 Q Q

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 59 NC 44 56 NC

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 23 Q 65 35 NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 43 Q 52 46 Q

 All the Time ................... Q Q Q Q Q NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Q Q 56 Q NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 44 NC 62 36 Q

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 58 NC 35 60 Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 51 Q 38 61 Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 36 Q 57 43 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 39 NC 60 38 Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 54 42 Q 45 51 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 51 Q 47 52 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 43 55 Q 45 55 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 45 NC 49 51 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 Q 45 52 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-46 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.14. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

Modified Vehicle and Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Fuel Twice as Often

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 24 75 Q 20 76 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 67 Q Q 71 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 82 Q Q 81 NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 74 Q Q 80 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 73 NC Q 72 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 77 Q 24 71 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 73 Q Q 81 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 79 Q Q 82 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 72 NC Q 70 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 74 Q 23 73 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 Q 18 79 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 78 NC Q 59 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 71 NC 27 69 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 68 NC Q 82 NC

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 87 Q Q 83 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 77 Q Q 78 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC NC Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 73 Q 21 76 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 79 Q 19 79 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 59 NC Q 68 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 Q 20 78 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 84 NC Q 70 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 67 NC Q Q Q

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 74 Q Q 78 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 76 NC 20 76 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 80 NC Q 67 Q

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 Q 19 78 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q 86 Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 68 Q Q 73 NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 72 Q 22 74 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 87 NC Q 84 Q

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC NC Q Q

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-47

Table 4.4.14. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel

Modified Vehicle and Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Fuel Twice as Often

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 24 75 Q 20 76 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 82 Q Q 85 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 80 NC 20 78 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 30 70 NC 27 70 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. QQQQQQ

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . Q 80 Q 21 75 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 76 NC 19 79 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 38 60 Q Q 71 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 72 NC Q 72 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 75 Q 19 77 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-48 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.15. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 

(Percent) 

15 Minutes Out of the Way to Fuel, Fuel Twice as Often, Vehicle $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 40 55 Q 31 62 Q

Region

 Northeast ..................... QQQQQQ

 Midwest ...................... Q Q Q Q Q NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 69 Q Q 58 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q 72 NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 64 Q Q 65 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 53 Q 37 59 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC NC Q NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 43 Q 34 60 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 64 Q Q 65 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 65 NC Q 63 NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 43 NC Q 62 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q Q Q Q Q

 55 or Older .................... Q Q Q Q 67 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC NC NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 47 Q 44 44 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 54 Q Q 65 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q 80 Q

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 59 Q 29 62 Q

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q NC NC NC Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 56 Q Q 55 Q

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 54 Q 28 65 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment ..................... QQQQQQ

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 52 44 Q 30 66 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QQQQQQ

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 44 Q 28 63 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC NC Q NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-49

Table 4.4.15. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

15 Minutes Out of the Way to Fuel, Fuel Twice as Often, Vehicle $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 40 55 Q 31 62 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned ............ Q Q Q Q Q NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Q NC Q 56 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 40 60 NC Q 61 Q

 Not Too Concerned ............. Q Q Q Q Q NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 48 44 Q Q 61 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 63 Q Q 66 Q

 More than Once a Week .......... QQQQQQ

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 60 Q 29 63 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-50 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.4.16. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle,

1994 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 minutes out of the Way, Fuel Twice as Often, Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 38 61 Q 34 62 Q

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 43 Q 32 66 Q

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 63 Q 40 59 Q

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 64 Q 33 63 Q

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 68 NC 33 58 Q

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 71 Q 25 71 Q

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 57 Q 42 54 Q

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 53 Q 39 56 Q

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q 75 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 59 Q 34 62 Q

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 63 Q 34 61 Q

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 61 NC Q 69 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 64 NC 33 65 Q

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 53 Q 34 63 Q

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 71 Q 29 64 Q

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 60 Q 43 51 Q

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 63 Q 24 71 Q

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 59 Q 39 57 Q

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC 43 55 Q

Race

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 57 Q 35 61 Q

 Black ......................... QQQQQQ

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC Q Q NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 69 Q 25 75 NC

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 57 Q 39 55 Q

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 68 NC Q 85 NC

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 38 60 Q 42 54 Q

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q Q

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 69 NC Q 63 Q

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 59 Q 35 60 Q

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 76 NC Q 74 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC Q NC NC Q NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-51

Table 4.4.16. Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Refuel the

Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as Often as a Regular

Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 minutes out of the Way, Fuel Twice as Often, Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 38 61 Q 34 62 Q

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 65 NC Q 67 Q

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 61 Q 34 65 Q

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 39 57 Q 42 54 Q

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q NC NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 67 Q 30 67 Q

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 67 NC Q 73 Q

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 77 NC Q 66 Q

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 49 NC 47 47 Q

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 59 Q 43 54 Q

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q Q NC Q Q NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 62 NC Q Q Q

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 54 Q 46 53 Q

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 66 Q 50 46 Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 68 NC 23 73 Q

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 59 Q 44 49 Q

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 52 Q 36 62 Q

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 44 56 Q 37 61 Q

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 63 Q 34 60 Q

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . Q 75 NC Q 73 Q

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Q 81 NC 47 53 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 59 Q 33 63 Q

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Q = Data withheld either because the Relative Standard Error (RSE) was greater than 50 percent or fewer than 10 households were

sampled.

 Note: Data may not sum to totals due to rounding or due to the omission of a “Don’t Know” category in which all data were Q’s or NC’s.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-53

4.5. Relative Standard Error Tables
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-54 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.1. Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern for the

Environment, 1994

(Percent) 

Level of Concern for Environment

Consumer Characteristic Consumers Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned

All Extremely Very Somewhat Not Too

Total ........................... 00 0 0 0

Census Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 30 24 23 72

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 32 22 16 45

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 24 12 10 33

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 34 17 27 64

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 16 8 8 19

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9 6 6 21

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 137 58 55 194

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 40 21 18 48

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 26 17 16 75

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 41 26 22 77

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 27 17 19 35

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 340 222 392 479

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 17 11 9 17

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 13 8 8 37

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 73 32 39 146

Race of Respondent

 White ......................... 1 5 3 2 7

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 62 47 61 209

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 621 202 344 892

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 131 85 104 147

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 22 14 13 33

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 4 4 13

Perception of Relative Safety of 

Fuels

 Natural Gas

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 31 15 15 77

 Natural Gas Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 36 24 29 72

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 23 15 13 39

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 31 20 16 33

 Propane

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 17 10 8 30

 Propane Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 54 40 46 151

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 28 14 16 43

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 38 26 21 47

 Electricity

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 57 51 36 71

 Electricity Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 4 5 19

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 49 43 35 111

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 56 46 31 74

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-55

Table 4.5.1. Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Level of Concern for the

Environment, 1994 (Continued)

(Percent) 

Level of Concern for the Environment

Consumer Characteristic Consumers Concerned Concerned Concerned Concerned

All Extremely Very Somewhat Not Too

Total ........................... 0 0 0 00

Heard of Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 49 38 32 71

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 2 2 7

 How Much Heard About

 Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

 Great Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 17 13 22 59

 Some . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 37 13 11 44

 Little . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 22 15 9 25

How Dangerous is Pollution Caused

by Motor Vehicles

 Extremely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 13 31 63

 Very . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 27 8 10 70

 Somewhat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 109 27 9 22

 Not Very . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 380 278 193 175

 Not at All . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 NC 2,686 1,134 486

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 472 591 216 454

Are You an Environmentalist

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 24 10 5 13

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 5 9 31

 Member of Environmental

 Organization

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 14 8 17 0

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 61 70 101 NC

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-56 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.2. Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994 

(Percent) 

Census Region

Consumer Characteristic All Consumers Northeast Midwest South West

Total .......................... 000 00

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 8 8 10

 Female ....................... 3 8 7 5 9

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 74 81 57 64

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 29 21 18 25

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 26 16 18 21

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 28 27 22 38

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 19 16 13 23

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 603 150 164 218

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 9 8 13

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 11 9 7 12

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 48 50 42 38

Race of Respondent

 White ........................ 1 3 1 3 4

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 120 99 27 198

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 190 2,680 699 129

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 147 633 119 50

Number of Adults Over 18

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 27 19 21 21

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8 5 5 8

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 40 55 31 42

 Four . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 87 145 96 160

 Five . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 192 372 905 1,041

 Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,129 1,147 1,390 NC 2,212

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 20 12 10 18

 More than $30,000 ............. 2 5 5 4 5

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 45 33 33 31

 Single-Family Detached .......... 2 5 4 4 6

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 86 229 98 119

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 60 48 35 70

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 92 381 182 648

 Personal Vehicles .............. 1 4 2 2 3

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 38 43 42 46

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 15 15 11 11

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 6 14 10 8 18

 Not too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 159 110 104 153

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-57

Table 4.5.2. Relative Standard Errors for Consumer Characteristics by Census Region, 1994

(Continued) 

(Percent) 

Census Region

Consumer Characteristic All Consumers Northeast Midwest South West

Total .......................... 000 00

Perception of Relative Safety of

Fuels

 Natural Gas

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 17 14 13 24

 Natural Gas Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 31 33 23 31

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 23 14 13 19

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 22 19 17 21

 Propane

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10 9 9 14

 Propane Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 31 48 34 55

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 25 15 14 18

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 29 25 20 28

 Electricity

 Gasoline Safer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 46 44 28 72

 Electricity Safer ................ 3 6 5 5 6

 No Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 51 34 32 66

 Don’t Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 47 38 28 45

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-58 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.3. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 7 16 99 9 17 66

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 28 125 27 36 152

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 38 561 17 26 298

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 27 202 14 28 75

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 42 145 19 54 187

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 35 121 12 32 76

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 22 205 19 21 95

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 32 298 20 41 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 84 363 22 66 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 27 188 12 27 115

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 20 113 13 21 80

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 48 NC 40 63 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 23 274 20 32 693

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 31 150 20 30 262

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 50 760 25 32 169

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 40 120 13 39 58

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 104 132 49 350 80

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 25 163 12 26 137

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 23 137 14 22 89

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 65 NC 28 53 528

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 18 102 10 17 66

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 47 NC 19 74 567

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 30 459 259

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 182 205 72 89 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 33 116 14 27 102

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 18 166 11 21 87

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 38 319 32 36 284

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 7 21 121 9 19 100

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 28 373 62 NC 69

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 64 260 63 48 81

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 153 NC 63 80 268

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 18 115 10 21 68

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 116 197 61 52 NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 0 NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 50 NC 44 259 166

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-59

Table 4.5.3. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 7 16 99 9 17 66

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 71 144 59 59 186

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 29 310 19 53 130

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 14 27 142 15 22 181

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 147 423 36 70 467

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 16 166 18 24 99

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 74 122 22 55 85

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 25 349 53 20 225

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 35 214 10 52 183

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 26 191 10 34 104

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 86 NC 24 72 594

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 48 293 15 730 188

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 39 266 13 91 117

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 61 419 28 33 800

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 22 113 17 19 79

Things Stored or Left in Trunk

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 40 NC 14 84 211

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 39 154 16 82 97

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 9 29 212 12 25 86

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 21 100 16 27 85

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 15 50 712 20 39 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 44 137 33 31 503

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 18 129 9 19 65

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-60 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.4. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 10 39 163 10 40 236

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 235 303 27 75 NC

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 74 262 18 57 NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 57 217 16 97 135

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 61 NC 21 117 NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 117 181 11 118 350

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 51 224 16 56 401

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 82 NC 18 129 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 69 NC 274 34 300

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 38 420 22 43 244

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 81 164 10 73 465

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 496 288 28 225 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 187 533 28 50 NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 54 511 19 114 272

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 51 398 14 134 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 63 229 21 73 203

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 204 NC NC 0 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 70 133 12 89 771

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 54 676 15 51 273

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 85 NC 44 115 329

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 47 182 11 39 222

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 57 312 0 NC NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC NC 0 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 133 NC 0 NC NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 75 248 7 158 NC

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 45 217 18 35 180

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 348 398 8 NC 483

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 14 34 194 15 32 250

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC NC NC NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 146 304 0 NC NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 54 168 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 46 165 9 61 490

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 69 93 NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC NC NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-61

Table 4.5.4. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 10 39 163 10 40 236

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 91 NC 0 NC NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 56 279 29 109 447

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 18 62 209 17 54 248

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 177 123 228 32 NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 47 685 20 46 376

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 NC 146 33 99 415

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 74 470 22 89 274

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 168 207 12 167 NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 56 186 22 48 352

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 236 NC 0 NC NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 151 185 NC 0 336

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 101 232 58 78 505

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 63 NC 47 47 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 267 12 58 433

Things Stored or Left in Trunk

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 130 NC 22 170 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 101 110 35 131 352

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 11 95 261 18 41 402

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 53 259 10 165 368

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 50 53 345 32 77 453

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 39 375 14 343 448

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 173 78 12 38 273

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-62 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.5. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 3 107 186 6 61 186

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 493 NC 17 92 NC

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 119 407 10 111 336

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 295 342 7 178 201

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 233 192 16 107 599

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 154 246 11 68 175

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 177 336 5 321 718

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 202 NC 16 104 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 NC 339 15 244 470

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 138 671 6 137 436

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 168 161 9 64 193

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 148 222 49 207 295

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 322 719 12 138 NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 128 NC 4 NC 684

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 321 393 16 82 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 357 276 11 86 154

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 69 106 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 130 173 9 98 170

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 224 1,498 7 93 859

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 297 528 16 411 368

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 107 173 6 74 242

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 449 NC 18 147 421

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC 119 110 243

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 226 256 10 96 195

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 117 281 6 80 363

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 168 277 21 128 NC

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 4 119 222 6 66 194

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 48 NC 187

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 127 173 7 55 286

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 346 NC 0 NC NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC 0 NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 54 NC 168

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-63

Table 4.5.5. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994

(Continued) 

(Percent) 

Half Trunk/Cargo Space and Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 3 107 186 6 61 186

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 375 NC 34 186 NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 178 NC 18 101 266

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 9 214 144 6 176 946

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 26 347 280

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 161 538 12 112 167

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 190 674 15 97 NC

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 538 288 11 NC 368

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 346 227 7 103 NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 171 229 8 74 477

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 NC 317 16 NC 184

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 324 NC 38 56 NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 345 213 10 125 NC

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 216 NC 12 207 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 167 276 9 128 195

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 228 581 11 154 620

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 907 209 15 84 551

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 4 552 175 7 110 309

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 158 461 10 121 189

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 14 85 NC 18 76 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 122 322 20 110 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 146 233 6 70 177

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-64 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.6. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Buy Fuel

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 5 7 96 7 6 70

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 19 204 17 11 166

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 14 180 11 13 179

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11 131 10 11 80

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 18 462 20 9 326

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12 109 11 8 87

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 12 202 10 9 111

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 396 18 14 374

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 20 360 21 21 994

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 11 244 10 7 172

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 96 9 8 71

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 19 327 33 20 184

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 14 366 14 12 223

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 13 280 15 9 238

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 17 348 14 13 184

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 19 98 11 12 85

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 64 586 51 62 74

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12 117 9 10 139

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 170 10 8 96

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 22 490 26 11 367

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 96 7 6 82

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 558 20 20 214

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 57 NC 48 49 163

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26 734 31 30 310

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 12 127 11 10 84

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 139 8 7 111

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 223 23 12 141

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 110 7 7 104

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 35 655 38 19 870

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17 445 34 13 99

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 48 407 41 25 555

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 9 130 7 7 82

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 25 409 36 17 232

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 74 252 70 43 218

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-65

Table 4.5.6. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way to Buy Fuel

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 5 7 96 7 6 70

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 15 164 36 10 275

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11 232 16 8 143

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 8 13 242 10 11 135

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 53 300 26 34 NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 7 12 138 9 8 153

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 11 138 11 8 92

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 409 17 16 132

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 22 316 21 15 165

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 100 7 6 77

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-66 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.7. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 12 8 95 14 6 91

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 25 187 37 11 163

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 15 91 27 12 242

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12 301 22 10 140

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 15 483 27 13 231

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13 129 21 9 118

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13 147 22 9 167

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 18 356 40 13 961

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 18 572 46 26 177

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 11 164 18 9 100

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 114 20 7 175

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 16 NC 50 22 386

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14 366 26 12 1,002

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 17 317 33 9 216

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 21 275 30 12 464

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 16 72 24 15 74

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 39 NC 20 514 316

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 10 147 25 9 137

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12 108 20 8 173

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 33 NC 32 16 173

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 101 15 6 87

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 23 259 40 18 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 37 NC 387 22 318

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 23 574 56 32 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16 127 24 10 149

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 9 137 16 7 115

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 19 152 28 16 335

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 14 9 115 17 7 96

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 30 NC 114 14 783

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 23 403 37 15 297

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 66 170 106 22 518

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 9 134 16 7 109

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 27 215 48 20 709

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 193 NC 130 64 216

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-67

Table 4.5.7. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 12 8 95 14 6 91

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 16 122 153 6 223

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 10 176 31 8 132

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 217 18 13 300

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 114 180 23 133 447

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 18 10 229 20 9 139

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 95 20 9 157

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 22 24 451 46 14 176

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 24 304 27 24 210

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 8 99 15 6 100

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-68 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.8. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less,

1994 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 4 16 118 5 19 95

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 38 485 18 30 129

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 35 184 8 37 297

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 28 232 7 34 240

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 28 210 13 63 142

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 26 181 9 25 127

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 23 177 7 29 199

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 46 263 10 114 142

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 53 NC 12 83 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 22 168 6 29 255

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 23 167 7 25 93

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 32 394 34 46 564

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 1,437 9 46 354

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 33 246 9 43 219

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 55 490 12 37 234

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 30 120 9 39 115

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 56 262 47 70 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 26 187 8 23 229

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 21 444 6 40 113

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 66 121 18 58 178

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 17 109 5 23 100

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 72 NC 24 34 333

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 96 NC 20 239 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 64 NC 37 52 469

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 29 164 10 24 221

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 19 165 5 28 103

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 42 306 19 32 904

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 5 18 151 5 24 116

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 193 571 20 138 248

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 40 262 23 72 142

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 144 NC 20 195 402

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 17 129 6 21 131

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 65 672 27 66 259

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 152 NC 35 184 NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-69

Table 4.5.8. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way for Fuel and Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 4 16 118 5 19 95

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 63 732 16 78 688

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 31 262 12 27 281

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 8 26 217 7 40 138

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 224 500 23 71 NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 7 22 123 7 32 127

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 23 288 8 26 162

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 9 66 470 12 51 286

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 137 10 75 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 41 164 5 20 89

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-70 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.9. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Modified Vehicle Must be Fueled Twice as Often 

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 7 5 85 8 5 61

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 11 224 22 9 127

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 9 175 14 10 128

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 115 14 7 98

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 10 263 20 11 98

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 9 151 12 8 82

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 117 15 6 91

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15 328 23 11 691

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 14 286 26 20 233

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 126 12 7 114

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 6 115 11 6 70

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 11 352 82 9 305

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 197 19 9 292

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7 260 20 7 206

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 12 253 21 10 98

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 14 105 11 13 73

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 44 NC 36 52 169

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 125 11 8 123

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 5 148 13 7 78

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 14 159 40 8 204

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 90 9 5 60

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 24 282 20 18 520

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227 16 436 60 30 437

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 16 865 52 18 704

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 132 13 9 90

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 5 111 11 5 82

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 11 229 23 11 191

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 101 9 6 76

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 23 655 66 16 191

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 14 225 32 12 148

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 25 NC 43 24 555

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6 105 10 5 69

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 16 195 50 13 296

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 143 89 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 53 NC 55 54 218

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-71

Table 4.5.9. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Modified Vehicle Must be Fueled Twice as Often 

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 7 5 85 8 5 61

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 10 249 51 7 1,205

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 7 157 24 6 126

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 179 13 9 95

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 38 205 24 41 738

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 11 7 107 11 8 82

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8 124 15 6 96

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 16 14 1,007 20 13 231

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17 249 24 13 165

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5 90 9 5 66

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-72 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.10. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 

(Percent) 

Must Refuel Twice as Often and Vehicle Cost $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 11 6 62 14 5 78

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 12 149 40 9 197

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14 67 28 10 159

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12 177 20 9 121

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 12 192 34 12 176

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 12 76 25 8 99

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 117 19 9 104

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 16 158 44 10 1074

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 22 631 65 14 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 113 17 8 142

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 8 73 23 6 91

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 14 NC 43 20 243

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 13 165 30 9 554

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 12 163 37 7 285

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 16 126 26 13 254

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 17 66 26 16 61

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 34 NC 24 157 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 9 134 25 9 82

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 73 20 7 169

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 22 75 44 10 277

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 7 59 14 6 86

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 20 395 56 15 642

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 27 NC 354 17 385

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 13 NC NC 10 168

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 15 90 26 9 143

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 7 84 17 6 93

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 17 139 29 15 243

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 14 8 69 17 6 97

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 28 NC 62 21 345

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 21 251 63 12 160

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 44 127 81 22 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 7 88 16 6 88

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 23 155 51 18 333

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC 0 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 219 76 331 34 256

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-73

Table 4.5.10. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 More,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Refuel Twice as Often and Vehicle Cost $1,000 More

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 11 6 62 14 5 78

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 9 137 78 8 236

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 8 139 33 7 123

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 12 16 110 19 12 228

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 95 319 40 84 368

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 18 9 89 18 9 146

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10 106 26 6 118

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 26 21 149 36 16 135

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 21 235 39 13 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 7 64 15 5 73

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-74 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.11. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less,

1994 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often but Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 5 20 70 5 24 106

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 34 141 15 34 590

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 44 150 11 39 114

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 43 109 6 44 422

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 37 188 9 144 163

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 32 91 7 43 159

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 32 128 8 40 182

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 79 190 18 42 242

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 51 461 14 91 674

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 37 108 5 60 162

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 24 92 8 24 140

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 35 NC 27 128 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 33 278 9 63 306

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 48 148 8 73 239

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 43 518 14 35 911

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 64 8 41 109

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 359 220 31 119 396

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 29 84 7 32 179

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 33 167 7 42 143

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 51 260 16 85 523

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 22 69 5 26 101

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 74 86 14 52 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 21 NC 272

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 202 451 9 454 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 39 71 8 43 160

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 24 138 6 29 142

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 41 261 10 92 376

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 5 27 84 6 28 101

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 128 215 16 197 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 42 172 21 43 NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 76 NC 28 80 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 22 73 6 29 100

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 71 NC 19 105 890

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 0 NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 139 NC 41 127 NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-75

Table 4.5.11. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel the Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less,

1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often but Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 5 20 70 5 24 106

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 38 343 13 120 NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 46 156 8 66 439

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 10 38 87 7 50 203

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 246 NC 34 72 176

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 8 32 85 8 35 87

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 31 120 7 38 432

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 12 51 299 10 65 1048

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 39 184 11 73 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 24 75 5 26 99

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-76 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.12. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 14 15 425 12 15 306

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 68 NC 23 36 428

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 21 NC 30 32 601

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 26 908 20 26 915

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 27 276 27 30 754

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 19 853 19 21 543

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 27 380 19 29 303

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 47 NC 34 45 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 51 NC 41 58 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22 977 19 21 273

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 20 435 16 22 1,048

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 70 NC 173 23 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 31 812 26 38 658

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 20 NC 19 39 NC

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 57 NC 24 37 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 27 279 25 25 219

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 128 NC 105 61 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 21 508 24 18 474

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 25 NC 16 29 343

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 41 351 26 50 NC

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17 388 14 17 270

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 34 NC 25 54 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 124 NC 132 97 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 49 NC 56 51 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 14 827 32 18 291

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 26 487 12 23 693

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 29 521 36 28 374

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 15 19 883 15 20 394

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 117 NC 47 86 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 28 534 28 47 NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 150 27 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 18 372 14 20 251

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 51 NC 38 68 NC

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 0 NC 76 169 NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-77

Table 4.5.12. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 14 15 425 12 15 306

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 38 435 55 34 NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 25 NC 30 21 490

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26 NC 14 40 293

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 125 276 36 104 NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 22 644 22 21 919

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 52 431 28 49 335

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 39 NC 38 57 508

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 30 845 19 32 802

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22 289 14 26 1,042

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 64 NC 54 69 NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 102 NC 25 80 NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 37 724 20 39 NC

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 25 184 32 43 534

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 NC 21 21 249

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 46 553 24 41 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 42 NC 20 48 NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 18 28 834 17 25 1,099

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 19 711 22 21 245

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 31 36 640 24 46 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 29 565 47 27 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 17 551 12 18 283

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-78 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.13. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 10 11 278 13 10 360

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 26 819 28 23 641

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 13 241 22 24 393

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 540 23 16 764

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 42 NC 32 23 NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 18 282 19 20 751

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 16 674 20 15 340

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 33 571 33 31 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 75 NC 71 24 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 17 317 15 19 1,158

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 486 20 12 342

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 23 NC 33 46 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 18 986 25 22 705

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 20 NC 24 23 391

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 49 237 32 18 NC

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 27 321 30 22 565

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 115 NC 62 103 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 19 1,235 21 16 308

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15 265 17 17 1,010

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 36 676 39 25 NC

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 13 294 13 12 322

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400 10 NC 43 29 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 299 NC 166 44 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 30 560 57 30 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 22 365 31 17 382

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 387 13 13 620

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 31 NC 53 24 447

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 272 14 13 623

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 102 NC 35 57 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 24 643 61 25 497

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 135 NC 42 124 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 286 14 12 631

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 39 NC 49 36 531

 Neither . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC 0 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC 0 NC NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-79

Table 4.5.13. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Refuel Modified

Vehicle Twice as Often as a Regular Vehicle and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the

Trunk/Cargo Space of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Must Fuel Twice as Often and Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 10 11 278 13 10 360

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 27 687 41 36 245

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 25 968 23 14 NC

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 14 22 670 21 20 845

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 51 371 73 58 NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 11 988 36 10 465

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 31 366 25 53 139

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19 NC 34 24 NC

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 47 369 13 32 NC

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 17 481 14 17 551

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 81 496 48 41 NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 77 283 26 43 NC

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 25 NC 16 36 855

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 21 NC 41 20 493

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 16 401 28 13 907

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 39 257 19 30 NC

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 31 NC 19 38 738

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 13 19 250 21 17 297

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 16 1,634 18 15 938

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 38 24 724 32 24 NC

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 29 NC 35 31 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12 256 13 11 342

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-80 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.14. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel Modified Vehicle and Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as

Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Fuel Twice as Often

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 25 5 410 28 4 213

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 14 861 56 11 217

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7 363 68 7 NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 8 1,131 56 6 408

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 13 NC 51 11 444

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 8 414 40 8 207

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 8 1,264 50 6 581

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 10 745 107 9 667

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 19 NC 71 20 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 7 668 37 7 236

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 6 521 44 5 405

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 12 NC 45 22 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 12 NC 46 11 546

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 11 NC 56 6 NC

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7 841 127 8 241

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 10 219 78 9 214

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284 20 NC NC 0 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 9 578 49 7 465

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 6 508 45 6 457

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 24 NC 54 13 217

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5 371 31 4 350

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 13 NC 70 21 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 63 NC 364 30 244

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 25 NC 364 50 96

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 9 234 53 7 580

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 6 NC 34 5 221

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 9 NC 63 14 213

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 32 6 413 37 5 342

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 25 NC 356 13 505

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 16 705 54 13 NC

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 182 18 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 6 423 31 5 270

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 11 NC 400 12 259

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 126 NC NC 37 200

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-81

Table 4.5.14. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel Modified Vehicle and Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice as

Often as a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out of the Way and Fuel Twice as Often

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 25 5 410 28 4 213

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 10 269 95 7 907

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 7 NC 45 7 882

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 34 10 NC 43 10 342

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 51 259 129 98 95

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 53 6 326 42 7 212

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 7 NC 45 6 789

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 38 20 779 71 14 503

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 17 NC 54 14 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 5 387 32 4 198

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-82 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.15. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice

as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994 

(Percent) 

15 Minutes Out of the Way to Fuel, Fuel Twice as Often, Vehicle $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 26 17 249 37 13 179

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 42 482 84 37 103

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 43 215 89 25 NC

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 19 565 50 26 588

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 45 NC 91 19 NC

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 22 185 85 19 152

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 27 330 46 23 595

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 37 NC 33 121 NC

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 142 NC NC 0 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 34 332 45 20 258

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 18 369 63 18 254

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 84 NC 71 40 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 26 NC 56 26 NC

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 41 NC 71 26 520

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 19 282 105 43 232

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204 29 125 210 25 131

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC NC NC NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 35 576 41 40 216

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 24 219 62 18 332

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 23 NC 150 16 536

Race of Respondent

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 16 222 42 15 161

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 55 NC 54 79 NC

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 NC NC NC 0 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 104 NC 244 37 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 28 188 61 29 264

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 21 831 47 15 239

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 35 372 68 35 531

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 23 28 398 48 15 536

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 82 156 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 25 390 188 37 106

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . NC NC NC 99 129 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 27 214 46 15 189

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 189 48 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC NC 0 NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-83

Table 4.5.15. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice

as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Costs $1,000 Less, 1994

(Continued) 

(Percent) 

15 Minutes Out of the Way to Fuel, Fuel Twice as Often, Vehicle $1,000 Less

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 26 17 249 37 13 179

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 60 154 98 28 NC

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 41 NC 61 24 227

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 44 22 NC 58 26 288

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 166 153 279 26 NC

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 32 38 277 53 20 225

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 20 674 60 18 616

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 62 34 488 102 46 254

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 137 NC 78 33 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 16 231 42 15 165

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-84 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.5.16. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice

as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994

(Percent) 

Drive 15 minutes out of the Way, Fuel Twice as Often, Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 17 9 474 18 8 196

Region

 Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 35 1,230 47 15 878

 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 15 572 32 16 1,059

 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 13 792 30 12 312

 West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 18 NC 41 19 213

Number of Vehicles

 One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 11 831 42 10 262

 Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15 1,137 22 15 404

 Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 25 532 38 22 354

 Four or More . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 39 NC 97 21 NC

Sex of Respondent

 Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 14 496 26 11 285

 Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 11 1,097 25 10 272

Age of Main Driver

 16 to 24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 21 NC 68 22 NC

 25 to 34 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 19 NC 44 15 1,018

 35 to 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 22 915 33 13 445

 45 to 54 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 15 631 46 17 285

 55 or Older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 20 606 30 21 248

Education of Respondent

 Elementary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 23 NC 229 32 NC

 High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 14 331 46 10 337

 College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 13 2,273 22 13 244

 Graduate School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 29 NC 33 23 1,005

Race

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 10 701 18 8 204

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 25 414 140 20 566

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC 52 100 NC

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215 15 NC 201 32 NC

Household Income

 $30,000 or Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 12 1,565 44 9 NC

 More than $30,000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12 485 19 11 159

Type of Housing Unit

 Apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 16 NC 108 9 NC

 Single-Family Detached . . . . . . . . . . 20 11 381 17 11 251

 Townhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 81 NC 467 18 199

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 19 NC 52 20 661

Transportation Type Most Often

Used

 Public Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 45 NC 47 68 NC

 Personal Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 11 1,163 21 10 181

 Both . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 19 NC 86 20 NC

 Don't Know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NC 0 NC NC 0 NC

 See footnotes at end of table.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-85

Table 4.5.16. Relative Standard Errors for Vehicle Choice When Consumer Must Drive 15 Minutes Out

of the Way to Refuel the Modified Vehicle, the Modified Vehicle Must be Refueled Twice

as Often as a Regular Vehicle, and the Modified Vehicle Has Half the Trunk/Cargo Space

of a Regular Vehicle, 1994 (Continued) 

(Percent) 

Drive 15 minutes out of the Way, Fuel Twice as Often, Half Trunk/Cargo Space

Modified Vehicle Pollutes Half as Much

as Regular Vehicle Modified Vehicle Does Not Pollute

Consumer Characteristic Vehicle Vehicle Know Vehicle Vehicle Know

Regular Modified Don't Regular Modified Don't

All Consumers ................. 17 9 474 18 8 196

Respondent Concern for the

Environment

 Extremely Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 21 NC 63 15 196

 Very Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 14 878 29 12 982

 Somewhat Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . 28 17 431 29 18 333

 Not Too Concerned . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 80 NC 0 NC NC

Trunk Size

 Large Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 13 264 36 11 396

 Medium Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 22 NC 75 16 671

 Small Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 12 NC 56 15 350

 No Trunk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 22 NC 23 24 296

More Than Half the Trunk Space

Used

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13 364 20 14 251

 All the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 66 NC 177 17 NC

 Most of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 28 NC 72 39 150

 Some of the Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 22 278 24 21 1,155

 Rarely . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 19 1,367 34 30 566

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 11 NC 44 8 293

Things Stored or Left in Trunk 

 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 21 554 31 26 247

 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 26 482 36 18 868

Frequency of Gas Purchase

 Less than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . 21 15 943 25 12 411

 Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 13 515 26 12 231

 More than Once a Week . . . . . . . . . . 79 17 NC 75 16 632

Amount of Gas Purchase 

 Does not Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 15 NC 38 28 NC

 Does Fill Tank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 10 453 20 8 186

 NC = No cases in responding sample.

 Source: Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Markets and End Use, Joint Program in Survey Methodology Consumer Vehicle

Preference Survey.
 Michael J. Brick and Joseph Waksberg, “Avoiding Sequential Sampling with Random Digit Dialing,” Survey Methodology (1991), pp. 17, 1

27-41.

 Joseph Waksberg, “Sampling Methods for Random Digit Dialing,“ Journal of the American Statistical Association (1978), pp. 73, 40-46. 2

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-87

4.6. Data Quality

Most of the information concerning the sample selection and sample weights found in the following pages is excerpted from

“Methods Report for Joint Program in Survey Methodology Study of Public Attitudes About Alternative Fuel Vehicles”

provided to EIA by the University of Maryland. 

Sample Selection

The eligible population for the study consisted of telephone households in the continental United States that owned or leased

one or more motor vehicles driven on a regular basis. The respondent was the adult in the household most knowledgeable

about the use of the household’s vehicles. 

The sample was selected using the Brick-Waksberg (1991) modification of the Mitofsky-Waksberg (Waksberg 1978) 1 2

Random Digit dialing two-stage cluster design. A frame of all possible clusters, defined as banks of 100 telephone numbers,

was generated (stratified by Census Region) from the January 1994 Bellcore Master Data File, a listing of all area code

exchange combinations in the United States. A systematic selection of clusters was then made from this frame. One

telephone number was randomly generated in each selected cluster and called. If it was a household, the cluster was retained;

if not, the cluster was excluded.

A total of 543 clusters was retained and eight telephone numbers sampled within each. Since clusters are selected with

probabilities proportionate to size and the number of second-stage households (households contained within the retained

clusters) can vary by cluster, the Brick-Waksberg design does not produce an equal probability sample. The design requires

weighting to adjust for these unequal probabilities.

Although the method does not achieve an equal probability sample, it has operational advantages. Unlike the MitofskyWaksberg design, the Brick-Waksberg method does not require sequential replacement of nonresidential telephone numbers.

Instead, the total sample is generated and released based on estimates of nonresidential telephone numbers and the

anticipated response rate. In this way, the cluster size is achieved without the cost of replacing non-households and

nonworking numbers as they are identified.

Response Rate

A total of 4,344 telephone numbers was selected from the 543 clusters. The disposition of these numbers is summarized

in Table 4.6.1.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-88 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Table 4.6.1. Disposition of Selected Telephone Numbers

Phone Numbers Households Known Eligible

Non-households 1,638 Known Ineligible 219 Interviews 1,712

Never Answered 90 Unknown Eligibility 493 Refusals 111

Households 2,616 Known Eligible 1,904 Not-at-homes 60

Total 4,344 Total 2,616 Misc. Problems 21 a

Total 1,904

 Language, illness, or hearing problems. a

Of the 4,344 numbers, 1,638 were non-households (businesses and non-working numbers). In addition, 90 numbers were

never answered after at least 20 dialings and were assumed to be non-households.

Of the 2,616 identified households, eligibility (whether the household owned or leased a vehicle) was determined for 2,123,

of which 1,904 were eligible and 219 were ineligible. For 493 cases, eligibility could not be determined mainly because of

refusals. The response rate is the total number of interviews divided by the number of eligible cases. The unknown

eligibility category can be treated in various ways. The most conservative approach, treating 100 percent of such cases as

eligible, gives a response rate of 71.4 percent. A more realistic response rate can be calculated by assuming the same

proportion of these households had a vehicle (89.7 percent) as for the 2,123 households for which eligibility was determined.

This response rate is 73.0 percent.

Sample Weights

Two design weights were used to adjust for unequal probabilities of selection: (1) the inverse of the number of telephone

numbers in the household and (2) the ratio of the mean number of households per cluster to the number of households in the

particular cluster. (In eight cases, this weight was trimmed so that it did not exceed three times the mean weight.)

There are also two post-stratification weights: (1) a geographic weight to adjust the sample distribution by major Census

region to the distribution of all households with cars and (2) a cluster weight that is the ratio of households with cars (in the

cluster) to households with cars that meet the regular use screening criterion. (Most often, this weight equals 1.)

Finally, an additional factor sets the weighted sample size equal to the unweighted sample size. All weights and the

adjustment factor are combined into one variable (variable name = WEIGHT) and attached to the record for each case in

the data set.

Nonsampling and Sampling Error

The statistics in this report are estimates of population values. These estimates are based upon a randomly chosen subset

of the entire population of households with vehicles in the contiguous United States. As a result, estimates always differ

from the true population values. The differences between estimated values and the actual population values are of two

types, nonsampling errors and sampling errors. Nonsampling errors are errors of the survey process that can result from

difficulties such as unit nonresponse or item nonresponse, inaccuracies in data collection, or incomplete coverage in the

design of the sampling frame. Sampling error is a result of the survey design, due to the fact that data are obtained from

a subset of the population of interest, rather than all members.
DE×

PCT×(1&PCT)

n 'SPCT

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 4-89

Nonsampling Errors / Adjustment for Item Nonresponse

Item nonresponse occurs when an item (or several items) is missing in an otherwise completed questionnaire, possibly

because the respondent does not know or, less frequently, refuses to give the answer to a particular question. Item

nonresponse is also recorded when the interviewer does not ask the question or does not record the answer during the

interview. For eight respondent demographic characteristics and 15 vehicle characteristic variables, values were imputed

for nonresponse. No imputations were made for missing preference or attitudinal items. Imputations were made using a

technique known as “hot-deck” imputation. In hot-decking, when a certain response is missing for a given respondent,

another respondent, called a “donor,” is randomly chosen to furnish its reported value for that missing item. That value is

then assigned to the respondent with item nonresponse.

To serve as a donor, the respondent has to be similar to the nonrespondent in characteristics correlated with the missing item.

This procedure was used to reduce the bias caused by different nonresponse rates for a particular item among different types

of respondents. Characteristics used to define “similar” depended on the nature of the item to be imputed. The most

frequently used characteristics were: Census region, State, age of the respondent, household income, type of home, and

education of the respondent. This analysis used a vector hot-deck procedure. With this procedure, the respondent that

donated a particular item to a receiver also donated certain related items if any of these were missing. Thus, a vector of

values, rather than a single value, is copied from the donor to the receiver. This helps to keep the hot-decked values

internally consistent, avoiding the generation of implausible combinations of respondent or vehicle characteristics.

Sampling Error

Sampling error occurs because the selected sample represents only one of the possible samples that could be selected under

the same survey specifications. The estimated values are developed from one of the many possible samples that could be

drawn and, therefore, will differ from true population values that would be obtained from a complete enumeration. Each

possible sample yields its own estimate of the true population values, with the differences attributable to the particular set

of cases selected in each sample. 

One measure of the variability of a survey estimate due to the sampling process is the average magnitude of the difference

between the values of the estimate for individual samples and the average value of the estimate over all samples of the same

size based on the same design. In other words, sampling error is a measure of the variability of an estimate over all

comparable samples, one of which was drawn. The average magnitude of the sampling error is measured by the standard

error of an estimate. The standard error is the root-mean-square measure of average difference over all possible samples.

Most statistical packages assume simple random sampling. This study employed a more complex design. Therefore, in

estimating sampling errors, a method is needed to take account of the sample design and the use of weights. SUDAAN

(Survey Data Analysis) was used to compute the design effect (the ratio of the variance reflecting design complexities to the

variance of a simple random sample of the same size) on 21 variables (five demographic, six attitudinal, and ten behaviorial).

The design effect was estimated at 1.13. Standard errors were computed by multiplying the standard error associated with

a simple random sample design by the design effect as follows:

where DE is the design effect, PCT is the estimate (in the form of a percent of the total), and S is the standard error of the PCT

estimate. 

 In this report, standard errors were expressed as relative standard errors (RSE). The relative standard error (RSE) is the

standard error expressed as a percent of the estimate, that is, for an estimate PCT:
SPCT

PCT 'RSEPCT

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

4-90 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Calculating the Confidence Range

To calculate the 95-percent confidence range

(that range which covers the true value of the

estimate with 95 percent confidence): 

1. Multiply the standard error by 1.96

2. Subtract the result of Step 1 from the given

estimate to determine the bottom of the range

3. Add the result of Step 1 to the given estimate

to determine the top of the range.

Measuring Statistical Significance

To determine if the difference between any two estimates in this report are statistically

significant:

1. Calculate the standard error of each estimate

2. Square the standard error of each estimate

3. Add the two values from Step 2

4. Take the square root of the value in Step 3

5. Multiply the value in Step 4 by 1.96 

If the value in Step 5 is less than the difference in the estimates, the difference between

the estimates is statistically significant.

Estimates with RSE greater than 50 percent were withheld from the published tables due to their lack of precision. Estimates

were also withheld if the number of observations was less than 10.

Using the RSE. To determine the standard error for an estimate, multiply the RSE for the estimate, shown in the tables in

this appendix, by the estimate. The standard error can be used to construct confidence intervals and to perform hypothesis

tests by using standard statistical methods. 
Section 5.

U.S. Census Region

Map and Glossary
OR

CA

WA

NV

ID

MT

WY

UT

AZ

CO

NM

ND

SD

NE

KS

TX

MN

IA

MO

AR

WI

IL

MI

OH IN

LA

TN

KY

MS AL GA

FL

SC

VA

NC

PA

NY

ME

WV

MD

DE

NJ

CT

RI

MA

NH

VT

HI

AK

West Region

MIdwest Region

South Region

Northeast Region

OK

DC

Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 5-3

5.1. U.S. Census Region Map
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles 5-5

5.2. Glossary

Alternative Fuel: As defined pursuant to EPACT: “methanol, denatured ethanol, and other alcohols; mixtures

containing 85 percent or more (or such other percentage, but not less than 70 percent, as determined by the Secretary,

by rule, to provide for requirements relating to cold start, safety, or vehicle functions) by volume of methanol, denatured

ethanol, and other alcohols with gasoline or other fuels; natural gas; liquefied petroleum gas; hydrogen; coal-derived

liquid fuels; fuels (other than alcohols) derived from biological materials; electricity (including electricity from solar

energy); and any other fuel the Secretary determines, by rule, is substantially not petroleum and would yield substantial

energy security benefits and substantial environmental benefits.”

Alternative-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle that has the capability of being fueled by an alternative fuel. This category of

vehicle includes dual-fuel, bi-fuel and flexible-fuel, as well as dedicated vehicles.

Bi-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle with the capability of using two separate fuel systems, one that can be operated on a

conventional fuel and one that can be operated on an alternative fuel.

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA): Public Law No. 105-549. The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act

of 1970 include provisions that require gasoline refiners to reformulate their gasolines to meet more stringent emissions

standards. In cities that do not meet Federal air-quality requirements set forth in the 1990 amendments, gasolines must

be reformulated during certain months, when air pollution levels are most serious. The regulations also require certain

fleet operators in 22 cities nationwide to use clean fuel vehicles.

Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): Natural gas that has been condensed under high pressures, typically between 2,000

and 3,600 psi, and expands when released from a container; used as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles.

Converted Vehicle: A vehicle originally designed to operate on gasoline that has been modified to run on an alternative

fuel. 

Dedicated Vehicle: A motor vehicle that operates solely on one fuel.

Dual-Fuel Vehicle: Vehicles designed to run on a combination of an alternative fuel such as CNG or LPG, and a

conventional fuel, such as gasoline or diesel. Dual-fuel systems are used mostly in heavy-duty or diesel engines. The

vehicle generally has two separate fuel tanks, from which both fuels are injected into the combustion chamber

simultaneously.

Electric Vehicle: A vehicle powered by electricity. Generally, the electricity is provided by batteries, which store

electricity, but may also be provided by photovoltaic cells or a fuel cells, which convert light or chemical energy to

electricity.

Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT): Public Law 104-486. A broad energy act with several titles that deal with

alternative transportation fuels. EPACT includes provisions for accelerating purchases of alternative-fuel vehicles by

Federal fleets, certain urban area State government fleets, the fleets of providers of alternative fuels, and under certain

conditions, private and municipal fleets. 

Fleet Vehicle: Any on-road motor vehicle owned or operated by the reporting company and used in the normal

operations of the company. Fleet vehicles include gasoline and/or diesel-powered vehicles and alternative-fuel vehicles.

Flexible-Fuel Vehicle: A vehicle that has the ability to operate on a mixture of an alternative fuel and gasoline or diesel

or to operate exclusively on an alternative fuel or gasoline or diesel.

Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW): The weight of the empty vehicle plus the weight of the maximum load that would be

carried on the vehicle.
Energy Information Administration/Describing Current and

5-6 Potential Markets for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles

Heavy Trucks: A truck weighing more than 26,000 lbs. GVW. If the reporting company was unable to estimate the

weight of a fleet vehicle, the company's best assessment of the vehicle size classification was acceptable.

Light-Duty Vehicles: Those vehicles (passenger cars, trucks, vans, and sport/utility vehicles) that weigh no more than

8,500 lbs. GVW. If the reporting company was unable to estimate the weight of a fleet vehicle, the company's best

assessment of the vehicle size classification was acceptable.

Light Trucks: A truck or van weighing between 8,501 and 14,000 lbs. GVW.

Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): Natural gas that has been condensed to a liquid, typically by cryogenically cooling the

gas; used as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles.

Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG): A hydrocarbon and colorless gas byproduct of natural gas production, produced from

crude oil; used as an alternative fuel for motor vehicles.

Medium Trucks: A truck or van weighing between 14,001 lbs. GVW and 26,000 lbs. GVW. If the reporting company

was unable to estimate the weight of a fleet vehicle, the company's best assessment of the vehicle size classification was

acceptable.

Metropolitan Area: A metropolitan statistical area or consolidated metropolitan statistical area, as established by the

Bureau of the Census, with a 1980 population of more than 250,000.

Multifuel Vehicle: Any alternative-fuel vehicle capable of operating on more than one fuel. This term is meant to

encompass bi-fuel, flexible-fuel, dual-fuel, and hybrid vehicles.

Municipal Fleets: Fleets that are part of local government (i.e., are not part of Federal or State government). These

fleets provide services to particular political jurisdictions below the State level of government.

Nonattainment Area: A region determined by population density in accordance with the U.S. Census Bureau that

exceeds minimum acceptable national air quality standards for one or more air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air

Act.

Private Fleet: Any nonresidential business fleet, i.e., a fleet that is not a unit of government. 

Private Fueling Facility: A fueling facility that normally services only fleets and is not open to the general public.

Propane: See Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). 

Public Fueling Facility: A fueling facility that is open to the general public.