4.7 Article

Effectiveness of China's plug-in electric vehicle subsidy

期刊

ENERGY ECONOMICS
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2020.104773

关键词

Plug-in electric vehicle; Subsidy; Fleet fuel economy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsidies for promoting plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) adoption are a key component of China's overall plan for reducing local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the light-duty vehicle sector. In this paper, we explore the impact and cost-effectiveness of the Chinese PEV subsidy program. In particular, a vehicle choice model is estimated using a large random sample of individual level, model year 2017 Chinese new vehicle purchases. The choice model is then used to predict PEV market share under alternative policies. Simulation results suggest that the 2.5% PEV market share of Chinese new vehicle sales in 2017 resulted in China's new vehicle fleet fuel economy improving by roughly 2%, reducing total gasoline consumption by 6.66 billion liters. However, the current PEV subsidy in China is expensive, costing $1.90 per additional liter of gasoline saved. This is due to a large number of non-additional PEV buyers, particularly high income consumers, who would have purchased the PEV regardless of the subsidy. Eliminating the subsidy for high income consumers and increasing it for low income consumers could result in a substantially lower cost per additional PEV ($13,758 versus $24,506). This would allow for greater PEV adoption (3.11% versus 2.47% market share) for the same budget. In terms of the impact of the recently announced subsidy reduction, results suggest that the PEV market share in China would have declined by 21% had the subsidy been halved without any countervailing measures. Using the same reduced budget, had zero PEV subsidies been given to high-income consumers and higher subsidies been given to low-income consumers, the PEV market share would have declined by only 8%. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据