WTP for V2G - George R. Parsons

Willingness to pay for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms

Summary

Parsons et al. (2014) conducted a survey on V2G adoption. V2G means EVs can send power back to the grid. By doing so, EV owners can get benefits. This study shows that V2G helps promoting EVs to the market. It also shows both “pay-as-you-go” and upfront discounts one the EV prices are preferred. On the contrary, it is a bad idea to have fixed requirements on participants.

Methodology

The methodology of this study is a national stated preference survey. In this context, “national” means nation-wide, and “stated preference” means the customers “claim” they would behave rather than actually do (revealed preference). In usual cases, stated preference surveys are less convincing than revealed preference. This survey had 3029 respondents. Participants compared their favorite gasoline vehicle with two V2G electric vehicles. The survey has attributes like “required plug-in time” and “guaranteed minimum driving range”, which are the agreement between EV owners and the grid.

This study utilized a preference space model, containing monetary and non-monetary utilities and systematical errors.

It has a good categorization basis, including:

Varied participants by age, gender, education, and income.
Preference of V2G methods - minimum driving range, required plug in time, cash payment.
Preference of car types - new/used, small/medium/large.

One take-away of the methodology is that, by dividing the survey into two smaller, interconnected experiments (conventional EVs vs V2G EVs), the participants can feel a step-by-step guidance to gradually understand the idea of V2G.

Results

Incentives of V2G should be increased to hedge inconvenience of car usage and people’s unawareness of the profit they can make.
The incentives can either be based on power contributions, or as a form of upfront EV discounts.

Gaps

This study was conducted in 2014, which is too old. During that time, EVs were far from being accepted compared with today.
The title stated WTP, but the constructed function shows preference space, with monetary utilities being merely a part of it.
The tables are mostly raw data, which should be fed to the calculations, rather than showing to the readers.
The data illustration is not good. Firstly, single color with different shapes looks horrible; secondly, only box plot was used, not to say that it didn’t cover much useful information.

References

Parsons, George R., Michael K. Hidrue, Willett Kempton, and Meryl P. Gardner. 2014. “Willingness to Pay for Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Electric Vehicles and Their Contract Terms.” Energy Economics 42 (March): 313–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.018.

--- title: "WTP for V2G - George R. Parsons" subtitle: "Willingness to pay for vehicle-to-grid (V2G) electric vehicles and their contract terms" bibliography: ../references.bib --- ## Summary @parsons2014 conducted a survey on V2G adoption. V2G means EVs can send power back to the grid. By doing so, EV owners can get benefits. This study shows that V2G helps promoting EVs to the market. It also shows both "pay-as-you-go" and upfront discounts one the EV prices are preferred. On the contrary, it is a bad idea to have fixed requirements on participants. ## Methodology The methodology of this study is a national stated preference survey. In this context, "national" means nation-wide, and "stated preference" means the customers "claim" they would behave rather than actually do (revealed preference). In usual cases, stated preference surveys are less convincing than revealed preference. This survey had 3029 respondents. Participants compared their favorite gasoline vehicle with two V2G electric vehicles. The survey has attributes like "required plug-in time" and "guaranteed minimum driving range", which are the agreement between EV owners and the grid. This study utilized a preference space model, containing monetary and non-monetary utilities and systematical errors. It has a good categorization basis, including: 1. Varied participants by age, gender, education, and income. 2. Preference of V2G methods - minimum driving range, required plug in time, cash payment. 3. Preference of car types - new/used, small/medium/large. One take-away of the methodology is that, by dividing the survey into two smaller, interconnected experiments (conventional EVs vs V2G EVs), the participants can feel a step-by-step guidance to gradually understand the idea of V2G. ## Results 1. Incentives of V2G should be increased to hedge inconvenience of car usage and people's unawareness of the profit they can make. 2. The incentives can either be based on power contributions, or as a form of upfront EV discounts. ## Gaps 1. This study was conducted in 2014, which is too old. During that time, EVs were far from being accepted compared with today. 2. The title stated WTP, but the constructed function shows preference space, with monetary utilities being merely a part of it. 3. The tables are mostly raw data, which should be fed to the calculations, rather than showing to the readers. 4. The data illustration is not good. Firstly, single color with different shapes looks horrible; secondly, only box plot was used, not to say that it didn't cover much useful information.