Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Analysis of alternative policy instruments to promote electric

vehicles in Austria
V. Gass*, J. Schmidt, E. Schmid
Institute for Sustainable Economic Development, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences,
Feistmantelstrasse 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The large amount of CO2 emissions and of fossil fuel consumption caused by the transportation sector
Received 9 December 2011 makes the sector central for attaining the EU energy and climate policy targets. Consequently, new
Accepted 6 August 2012 propulsion systems are developed in the automotive industry, which currently have cost disadvantages
Available online 6 September 2012
compared to conventional internal combustion engines (ICE). The article provides a review on support
measures for electric vehicles (EV), which have been currently implemented within the European
Keywords:
Union. In a case study analysis for Austria, we analyze different policy instruments including a CO2
Electric vehicles
tax aiming to support the introduction of electric vehicles in Austria. We have calculated and compared
Total cost of ownership (TCO)
Fiscal policy instruments
total costs of ownership (TCO), which includes all costs associated with the ownership of an automobile
Break-even including costs of purchasing, operating and maintaining, charges and taxes as well as costs of recycling
and disposal. A survey on main specications of electric vehicles has been conducted among
the main automobile manufacturers and importers in Austria. Based on this survey, TCO have
been calculated dynamically from 2011 to 2020 for a business as usual (BAU) scenario considering
currently implemented taxes and subsidies for ICE and electric vehicle systems. Three alternative policy
support measures have been assessed to promote EV until 2015. Results show that EV will be cost-
competitive with ICE by the year 2012/2013 if projected production volumes and thus economies of
scale are reached. Further, we conclude that an up-front price support seems to be favorable over
taxation systems.
2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction network would be required to overcome the limited driving range

Currently, 98% of the transportation sector in the EU depends on
fossil fuels. The sector is responsible for approximately 21% of the
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with more than half of
the emissions produced by passenger cars [1]. The EU Directive
(2009/33/EC) on the promotion of clean and energy efcient
road transport vehicles has been released to foster a broad mar-
ket penetration of environmentally friendly vehicles in order to
decarbonize the transportation sector and to reduce oil dependency.
Several new propulsion systems such as plug-in hybrids, range
extenders as well as electric vehicles (EV) have emerged and
entered the market or are ready to enter the market in the near
future [2]. However, the cost disadvantages of the newly emerging
propulsion systems as well as their limited driving range have to be
overcome in order to achieve a shift in the transportation sector.
Due to the limited energy density of batteries, EV have currently
a limited driving range of approximately 160 km. A dense charging
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 43 1 47654x3594; fax: 43 1 47654x3692.
E-mail address: viktoria.gass@boku.ac.at (V. Gass).
barrier. However, economic viability and a successful introduction
of alternative propulsion systems will mainly depend on economic
aspects such as relative average costs in comparison to internal
combustion engines (ICE).
Therefore, the gap between the total cost of ownership (TCO) of
alternative transportation systems and of ICE should be temporarily
closed by appropriate policy interventions to promote environ-
mentally friendly vehicles. Current research regarding the
economic viability of electric vehicles has mainly focused on life-
cycle cost analysis [3e5]. Thiel et al. [3]compared the well-to-wheel
CO2 emissions, costs and CO2 abatement costs of passenger light
duty vehicles including gasoline vehicles, diesel vehicles, diesel
hybrid vehicles, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles. A
static comparison has been conducted for the years 2010, 2020 and
2030 under a new energy policy scenario for Europe. They conclude
that electric vehicles can clearly contribute to a decarbonization of
the transportation system if renewable electricity is used. Accord-
ing to [3], adequate policy instruments are necessary to overcome
the current cost disadvantages of electric vehicles to attain appro-
priate payback periods.

0960-1481/$ e see front matter 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.08.012
 V. Gass et al. / Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101
Ogden et al. [4] conducted an analysis of the societal lifecycle
cost of transportation including the purchase price, fuel costs,
externality costs of securing oil supply and damage costs for
emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases which are
calculated over the full fuel cycle.
Thomas [5] developed a dynamic computer simulation model
that compares the societal benets of replacing conventional
gasoline cars with vehicles that are partially electried,
including hybrid electric vehicles. He concludes that electric
vehicles in combination with hybrids, plug-in hybrids and bio-
fuels will be necessary to achieve an 80% reduction in green-
house gas emissions below 1990 levels by simultaneously
cutting dependence on imported oil and eliminating nearly all
controllable urban air pollution from the light duty vehicle eet.
However, to increase market shares, market barriers have to be
overcome. Therefore, the consumer perspective and thus the
choice of cost-effective policy instruments should be the focus of
further research.
The aim of the article is to analyze different policy instruments
by comparing total cost of ownership (TCO) of EV and ICE in Austria.
TCO are calculated dynamically from 2011 to 2020 for a business as
usual (BAU) scenario considering currently implemented taxes and
subsidies for ICE and EV. In contrast to lifecycle cost analysis of
alternative propulsion systems, our analysis focuses mainly on the
total cost of ownership and places the consumer perspective in the
center of the analysis, because with the exemption of early adopters
consumers are usually not willing to accept the current cost
differential between ICE and EV. Surveys conducted among Cali-
fornian households found that e.g. the present value of fuel savings
is rarely considered in the purchase decision of a new vehicle [6]. If
consumers consider fuel economy when purchasing a vehicle,
surveys conducted by [7] and [8] indicate that consumers expect
vehicle efciency improvements to pay for themselves in the rst
three years or less. As indicated by the surveys and argued by [9]
main barriers toward a transition to an alternative transportation
system are not technical ones but socio-economic ones. Therefore
the political framework can have considerable impact on the
vehicle characteristics and fuel efciency [10] as well as on the
driving distance by affecting the cost of transport and as such
inuencing consumer behavior and spreading efcient propulsion
technologies [11].
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 provides an over-
view of the support schemes currently launched in the EU-15.
Section 3 gives an overview of currently implemented taxes on
transportation in Austria. Section 4 presents the data and meth-
odology. An analysis on different policy support instruments to
equalize the TCO of EV and ICE in Austria is shown in Section 5.
Section 6 presents a sensitivity analysis on the main model
parameters and Section 7 concludes.
2. Implemented support schemes for EV in the EU-15
Many EU member states have introduced national targets for
the EV driving stock, the expansion of charging infrastructure, or
production targets of electric vehicles [12]. Most EU member
states overcome the cost disadvantage of alternative vehicles by
introducing policy instruments such as an up-front price
support in order to increase the affordability of electric vehicles
by reducing the marginal capital cost, which is considered as
one of the key barriers for consumers [13]. Within the EU-15,
passenger cars have mainly been the target of a tax reform
that takes into account the CO2 emissions of vehicles.
Policy instruments that are currently implemented in order to
stimulate the up-take of alternative propulsion systems consist
of [13]:
97
- Registration or purchase taxes
Registration or purchase taxes are an up-front cost and can
have a strong impact on directing buying decisions to low
carbon vehicles, if costs are differentiated with regard to the
specic CO2 emissions of the vehicles. In France, a bonus/malus
system has been introduced whereby vehicles above certain
CO2 emission thresholds have to pay a malus and vehicles under
the threshold receive a bonus. Such a system may increase the
acceptability of policy makers as well as of consumers, because
it can be designed in a revenue neutral manner [13].
The EU proposal for a Council Directive [14] with the aim of
decarbonizing the transportation sector suggests implement-
ing reforms in the vehicle registration taxes and annual
circulation taxes. It is stated that scal measures provide
a strong incentive value, for example, by encouraging the rapid
renewal of the car eet and inuencing consumers behavior
toward more fuel-efcient passenger cars.
- Circulation or motor taxes
The circulation tax usually tied to the engine power, cylinder
capacity or fuel consumption is a monthly or annual paid tax.
According to [13], circulation or motor taxes have a limited
effect on the purchase decision as they are annual or monthly
charges, implying that consumers place much more attention to
the up-front purchase price than to annual or monthly charges.
Although they are considered to be politically acceptable, their
impact to promote EV is rather low as the cost range of such
measures is limited [14].
- Fuel taxes
Fuel taxes are considered to be an effective regulatory
instrument to (i) limit energy consumption in road transport
[15,16] (ii) incentivize consumers to buy more energy efcient
cars, and (iii) change driving patterns.
Table 1 provides an overview of the currently implemented
support measures [13,15e17].
3. Status quo: policy instruments implemented for passenger
cars in Austria
Currently there are three main taxation instruments inuencing
the cost of passenger car transport in Austria [14]: a purchase tax
which is basically an up-front fuel consumption tax called Norm-
verbrauchsabgabe (NoVA), an engine related vehicle tax (motor-
bezogene Versicherungssteuer), and a fuel tax.
The fuel consumption tax has to be paid upon rst registration
of the car in the country. The tax is levied as a percentage of the
purchase price and is calculated based on the fuel consumption of
the car. A bonus/malus system is implemented with respect to the
CO2 emission of a car. Cars with a CO2 emission above the threshold
of 160 g/km have to additionally pay 25 EUR/g. EV receive currently
a bonus of EUR 500. Additionally, the consumer has to pay 20% VAT
on the total purchase price including the fuel consumption tax.
The engine related tax, also called circulation tax, is paid
according to the insurance payment, monthly, semi-annual or
annual. The amount of the engine related tax depends on the
engine power of the car. Additionally, the consumer has to pay 11%
insurance tax on the engine related tax. EV are currently exempt
from the engine related tax in Austria.
The fuel tax called Minerallsteuer (MST) amounts for gasoline
vehicles to 0.447 EUR/l and for diesel to 0.347 EUR/l. Currently,
biofuels and compressed natural gas are exempt from fuel taxes.
98 V. Gass et al. / Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101

Table 1 Table 2
Policy instruments to supporting EV in the EU-15. Technical specications.

Country Economic instruments for the support of EV VW Golf Nissan Mitsubishi

Austria Exemption from fuel consumption tax Trendline Leaf i - Miev
Exemption from monthly vehicle tax Technology
Up-front purchase price bonus of EUR 500 ICE engine displacement (l) 1.6 e e
Belgium Purchasers of electric cars receive a personal Turbocharger (yes/no) yes e e
income tax reduction of 30% of the purchase price (with a PT power (kW) 77 e e
maximum of EUR 9000) Electric motor power (kW) e 80 49
Finland Exemption of fuel tax Battery capacity (kWh) e 24 16
Italy A tax incentive of EUR 800 and a two year exemption Energy source Diesel Electricity Electricity
from annual circulation tax is granted for the Performance
purchase of an EV. Weight (kg) 1318 1545 1110
Denmark Exemption from registration tax and annual circulation Acceleration 0e100 km/h (in s) 11.3 e e
tax. Further EV qualify for free parking Top speed (km/h) 189 140 130
Germany EV exempt from the annual road tax for a period of ve Fuel consumption (l/100 km) 4.1 e e
years from the date of the rst registration Electricity consumption (kWh/100 km) e 0.150 0.150
Spain Various regional governments grant tax incentives for the Tailpipe CO2 emissions (g/km) 107 e e
purchase of alternative fuel vehicles including EV e approx. Costs
EUR 6000 Vehicle incl. VAT and NoVA (EUR) 27,601 36,240 35,900
France BonuseMalus System; New Cars with CO2 emissions below NoVA (fuel consumption tax 4% 0% 0%
125 g/km receive a premium. EV receive currently EUR 5000 in % of purchase price)
Greece EV exempt from registration tax. If engine capacity below Battery cost (EUR/kWh) e 500 500
1929 cc, exemption from road tax. Further EV are even Battery cost (EUR) e 12,000 8000
allowed to drive in Athens when parts of the city are Rent battery (EUR/km) e e e
restricted to ICE to reduce trafc congestion. Loss in value p.a. 22.5% 33% 33%
Ireland EV exempt from registration tax e approx. EUR 2500. Maintenance cost (EUR/100 km) 5.00 2.9 2.9
The approx. EUR 6400 reduction from the registration tax
Netherlands
Portugal Exemption from registration tax
Sweden Exemption from annual road tax for a period resulting performance and cost gures of EV and ICE for which the
of 5 years upon rst registration TCO have been calculated.
United Exemption from annual road tax The analysis considers (i) further technical improvements for
Kingdom ICE as well as (ii) cost reductions of EV through learning effects. Fuel
Ireland Exemption from registration tax
Luxemburg Annual circulation taxes based on CO2 emissions
consumption rate of ICE is continuously improving in order to meet
the market demand for more fuel efcient vehicles and with
respect to the EUs average emission target of passenger cars of
Additionally, the consumer has to pay 20% VAT on the diesel and 130 g/km in 2015. Estimated fuel consumption efciency
gasoline price, respectively. improvement rates differ strongly in literature ranging from 7% in
the period 2010 to 2030 [14] to 15% in the period 2010 to 2020
[3,21]. [22] came to the conclusion that between 4% and 7% ef-
4. Data and methodology
ciency improvements seem possible until 2015. In our calculation,
we made the assumption that ICE would have a 10% better energy
Total cost of ownership (TCO) includes all costs arising with the
efciency in 2020 than in 2011, however, a sensitivity analysis on
ownership of an automobile including costs of purchasing, oper-
this parameter has been conducted in Section 6.
ating and maintaining, charges and taxes as well as costs of recy-
Regarding EV, an assumption of no efciency improvements has
cling and disposal over a specied timeframe under consideration
been made in our analysis. [22] assumed efciency improvements
of opportunity costs. TCO is dened as following:
for EV of 8.1% for the period 2010 to 2030, whereas [3] assumed no
X
N efciency improvements as EV already feature all near-term
TCO I ct 1 rt R1 rN ; (1) conceivable efciency advances.
t1 Cost reductions have been considered with respect to battery
where I represents the purchase price, ct maintenance and oper- performance. The assumed learning rate for battery cost reductions
ating costs, r the discount factor and R the resale price. Maintenance amounts to 9% per annum. Currently, battery costs amount to
and operating costs include infrastructure charges, insurance, fuel approximately 600 EUR/kWh [3,16] and are expected to decline to
consumption tax, and the engine related vehicle tax. TCO have been approximately 210 EUR/kWh in 2020. However, estimates on
calculated annually for the period 2011 until 2020 considering an battery costs range in literature between EUR 500 and EUR 800 in
ownership period of 5 years and an annual mileage of 15.000 km 2010 and between EUR 180 and EUR 300 in the period 2011 to 2020.
representing the annual Austrian average mileage [18]. It represents an average cost reduction of approximately 60% over
TCO have been calculated for limited vehicle options based on the period 2011 to 2020 which results in an annual learning rate of
a survey conducted with the main automobile manufacturers and about 9% [3,13,14,16,22e24]. Projected production volumes are re-
importers in Austria. The survey includes data on technical speci- ected in the assumed learning rate and have not been separately
cations and costs. The EV included in the analysis are either calculated. Consequently, price reductions resulting from an
already available for sale in Austria or will be in the near future [19]. increase in production volume are already reected in the calcu-
The survey has been conducted with the automotive representative lation of the TCO.
ofces of Nissan, Renault and Mitsubishi in Austria. The ICE have According to the survey, automobile manufacturers expect that
been chosen to be of similar size and technical specications. They the battery of EV needs to be replaced after approximately
represent the most often sold cars in the vehicle class. Technical 75,000 km. We assume that vehicles are sold after ve years, because
specications and performance assumptions for ICE have been no estimates on battery replacement costs are currently available.
derived from the respective automobile manufacturers [20]. Table 2 The percentage loss in value per annum as well as maintenance costs
provides an overview of the main specications as well as the main are estimates of manufacturers received in the survey.
 V. Gass et al. / Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101 99

44,000

42,000

40,000

TCO in EUR
38,000

36,000

34,000

32,000

30,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

VW Golf Trendline Nissan Leaf Mitsubishi i-Miev

Fig. 1. TCO for VW Golf Trendline, Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i-Miev in the years 2011e2020.

The current gasoline price in Austria amounts to 1.38 EUR/l and
for diesel to 1.33 EUR/l including taxes and charges. The gasoline
and diesel prices are assumed to be consistent with the projected
oil prices in the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 [25] representing
a compound annual growth rate of approx. 4.2% per annum. The
electricity price for Austrian households amounts currently to 16.19
ct/kWh including taxes and charges. The average projected increase
in the electricity price (EEX Phelix baseload futures) until 2016
amounts to approximately 1.7% per annum. These price develop-
ments are linearly extrapolated to 2020.
5. Results
We analyze three scal policy scenarios, which consist of an (i)
up-front price support, a (ii) CO2-tax, and (iii) an increase in the fuel
consumption tax for ICE, respectively. The minimum level of
incentive to make EV competitive from 2011 onwards is shown for
each policy instrument.
5.1. The business as usual (BAU) scenario
As shown in Fig. 1, in the BAU scenario implying that no policy
will be implemented, the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi i-Miev will be
cost competitive with the VW Golf by the year 2012/13. The TCO of
ICE are increasing over time mainly due to rising fuel costs. The
decrease in the TCO of EV is mainly attributed to the projected
decline in battery costs. Fig. 2 shows the composition of the TCO for
the representative cases. It is clearly shown that xed costs as the
purchase price are higher for EV than the variable costs. Mainte-
nance costs of EV are much lower as they do not require tune-ups or
oil changes. Additionally, EV do not have timing belts, water pumps,
radiators, fuel injectors, or tailpipes to replace. Insurance costs are
much lower for EV as they are currently exempted from the
monthly engine tied tax in Austria.
The BAU scenario implies that EV will be competitive by the year
2012/13. However, competitiveness will only take place if projected
volumes are produced to realize the necessary economies of scales.
Consequently, subsidies may be necessary to realize the projected
production volumes.
5.2. Introducing an up-front price support
As shown in Section 2, many countries have currently imple-
mented or are considering to implement an up-front price support
(e.g. usually in the form of an exemption of the registration tax)
for alternative propulsion systems. An up-front price support is
considered as an effective policy instrument, because consumers
put much larger emphasis on the purchase price of a vehicle than
on the resulting maintenance and operating costs [15]. However, by
introducing an up-front price support for EV, the question arises of
how much price support is necessary to incentivize sufcient
uptake of EV.

100%
11% 12%
90%
32% 6% 4%
80%
70%
60% 13%

50%
40% 83% 84%

30%
55%
20%
10%
0%
VW Golf Nissan Leaf Mitsubishi i-Miev

Investment cost Fuel costs Maintenence and insurance costs

Fig. 2. Composition of TCO for VW Golf Trendline, Nissan Leaf, and Mitsubishi i-Miev in 2011.
100 V. Gass et al. / Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101

Table 3 the CO2 price on the EU Emission Allowances spot market trades at
Effect of a CO2 tax on diesel price. 15 EUR/t. Increasing the CO2 tax to up to 500 EUR/t has to be
VW Golf 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 considered as politically infeasible. Therefore, the introduction of
CO2 emission g/km 109 109 109 109 109 a CO2 tax as sole policy instrument to reduce the price differential
Fuel consumption l/ km 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.042 and to achieve a certain market penetration of EV is not considered
CO2 emission g/l 2595 2595 2595 2595 2595 viable.
CO2 tax ct/g 0.055 0.050 0.030 0.015 0.000
ct/l 142.7 129.8 77.9 38.9 0.0
ct/km 5,99 5,45 3,27 1,63 0 5.4. Increasing the fuel consumption tax (NoVA)

The necessary levels of the fuel consumption tax (NoVA) have

In our analysis, we have calculated alternative levels of upfront
price support to offset the gap between ICE and EV of TCO. These
are EUR 2000 in 2011, EUR 1500 in 2012, EUR 500 in 2013, and zero
in 2014 and 2015. The interviewed representatives of automotive
manufacturers have clearly stated that nal purchase prices are set
under consideration of governmental support and that EV will be
available for sale only in countries with governmental support
measures at a level that is considered sufcient from the perspec-
tive of car manufacturers. The level of price support should be
adjusted annually to account for learning effects. High political and
public acceptability is attributed to an up-front price, however,
some moral hazard problem will remain [13].
5.3. Introducing a CO2 tax
been analyzed as third policy option. Currently the NoVA amounts
to approximately 4% of the purchase price for the cars under
consideration. The NoVA would need to be set to 15% in 2011, 12%
in 2012, 7% in 2013, and zero in 2014 onwards in order to suf-
ciently support EV. Similarly to the CO2 tax, an increase in the
NoVA as only policy instrument is currently considered to be
politically infeasible and it may cause adverse effects on the total
automotive market.
6. Sensitivity analysis
The impact of the main model parameters on the break-even
between ICE and EV have been analyzed within a sensitivity anal-
ysis. We have analyzed the impact of a change in

In a second scenario, we have analyzed the level of a CO2 tax for (i) the battery cost,
the transportation sector in order to promote EV. A CO2 tax is (ii) the learning rate of the battery,
generally considered to be an effective policy instrument from an (iii) the fuel price,
environmental point of view, because it contributes to lowering (iv) the fuel consumption rate,
CO2 emissions, cost-efciently. Furthermore, it generates revenues (v) the annual mileage, and
for the government that can be used to subsidize cleaner technol- (vi) the electricity price
ogies [26]. Besides reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a CO2 tax
has the capacity to reduce other external costs of ICE such as on the break-even. The results are shown in Fig. 3. The impacts
changing driving habits, reducing trafc congestions, and other are analyzed by parameter changes of 30%, 20%, 10% and 10%,
emissions such as ne dust [26]. 20%, 30%, respectively. As shown in Fig. 3, the break-even is very
A CO2 tax can be levied by directly taxing gasoline and diesel sensitive to the annual mileage and to the battery costs. If annual
corresponding to the carbon content of the respective fuel. This mileage is increased to 19,500 km or battery costs decreased to 480
implies that a CO2 tax would result in an increase in the respective EUR/kWh, EV would be already cost competitive today. Further
fuel price. The level of CO2 tax per tonne necessary to sufciently results show that if the underlying learning rate of the battery of 9%
promote EV declines from EUR 550 in 2011 to EUR 500 in 2012, EUR per annum is not achieved, the break-even shifts backwards to
300 in 2013, EUR 150 in 2014 and zero in 2015. Table 3 shows the 2014. The underlying annual increase in fuel prices and electricity
resulting increase in diesel prices for the respective ICE. prices as well as a change in the fuel consumption rate within the
In our analysis, the implementation of a CO2 tax becomes range investigated has no major impact on the break-even of the
effective, if the CO2 price is approximately 500 EUR/t. Currently, TCO between ICE and EV.

2017
Annual mileage
2016
Year of break-even

Battery cost
2015
Learning rate -
- Fuel price
2014 increase;
- Electricity
2013 price increase,
- Fuel
2012 consumption

2011
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
% change in input parameter

Battery Cost in EUR Fuel consumption rate in %

Learning rate - Battery in % Annual mileage in km
Fuel price increase in % Electricity price increase in %

Fig. 3. Results of the model parameter sensitivity analysis.

 V. Gass et al. / Renewable Energy 61 (2014) 96e101
7. Concluding remarks
TCO have been calculated for EV and ICE. The BAU scenario
shows that EV shall be competitive with ICE in the year 2013/14, if
no additional policies are implemented in Austria. However,
signicant learning effects are assumed to decrease costs of electric
cars. Such learning effects can be mainly triggered if policy makers
sufciently support research and development of new environ-
mentally friendly vehicle technologies and implement a stringent
policy framework supporting the shift toward a sustainable trans-
port system. The analysis clearly shows that both CO2 and NoVA
taxes, which increase the costs of ICE, have to be prohibitive to make
electric cars competitive. However, introducing such levels of taxes
does not seem to be politically feasible. In contrast, an up-front price
support system (e.g. direct nancial support, exemption from
registration tax, bonus/malus system) seems to be favorable rather
than taxation. Lowering up-front costs for EV will as well have
a greater effect on the consumer decision making process as
consumers put more emphasis to the up-front price than to variable
costs. These results and indications are conrmed by the literature
and major consumer surveys [13,14,23]. Even though cost disad-
vantages can be overcome by policy support instruments, technical
limitations of EV such as limited range and relatively long charging
times remain. In addition to closing the TCO gap between EV and ICE
and to overcoming technical limitations, policy makers shall focus
on providing infrastructures for a large-scale take-up of EV.
Acknowledgment
This article has been supported by the project Towards the
2020 climate and energy goals: cost-effective policy instruments
for CO2 emission reduction and renewable energy support in
Austria funded by the Jubilumsfonds of sterreichische
Nationalbank
References
[1] EU Insight. Driving toward a more sustainable future; 2009. 29.
[2] Schmid S, Mock P, Friedrich H. Welche Antriebstechnologien prgen die Mobi-
litt in 25 Jahren? (Which propulsion technologies shape the driving pattern in
25 years?). ejmjw Zeitschrift fr Energie, Markt, Wettbewerb 2010:6e10.
101
[3] Thiel C, Perujo A, Mercier A. Cost and CO2 aspects of future vehicle options
in Europe under new energy policy scenarios. Energy Policy 2010;38:
7142e51.
[4] Ogden J, Williams R, Larson E. Societal lifecycle costs of cars with alternative
fuels/engines. Energy Policy 2004;32:7e27.
[5] Thomas CE. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy 2009;34:6005e20.
[6] Greene DL, German J, Delucchi MA. Fuel economy: the case for market failure;
2009.
[7] Geller H, Attali S. The experience with energy efciency policies and programs
in IEA countries; 2005.
[8] Steiner E. Consumer views on transportation and energy; 2003.
[9] Sovacool BK, Hirsh RF. Beyond batteries: an examination of the benets and
barriers to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and a vehicle-to-grid
(V2G) transition. Energy Policy 2009;37:1095e103.
[10] Bonilla D. Fuel demand on UK roads and dieselisation of fuel economy. Energy
Policy 2009;37:3769e78.
[11] Diamond D. The impact of government incentives for hybrid-electric vehicles:
evidence from US states. Energy Policy 2009;37:972e83.
[12] Kley M, Wietschel D, Dallinger D. Evaluation of European electric vehicle
support schemes. Working paper sustainability and innovation. Frauenhofer
ISI; 2010.
[13] AEA Energy & Environment. Hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles:
measures to stimulate uptake; 2008.
[14] Kloess M, Mller A. Simulating the impact of policy, energy prices and tech-
nological progress on the passenger car eet in AustriaeA model based
analysis 2010e2050. Energy Policy 2011;In Press[, Corrected Proof].
[15] AEA Energy & Environment. Market outlook to 2022 for battery electric and
plug-in hybrid electric cars; 2009.
[16] JRC - Joint Reserach Center. Well to Wheels analysis of future automotive fuels
and powertrains in the European context; 2008.
[17] European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA). Overview of tax
incentives for electric vehicles in the EU; 2011.
[18] Schmidt J, Gass V, Schmid E. Land use changes, greenhouse gas emissions and
fossil fuel substitution of biofuels compared to bioelectricity production for
electric cars in Austria. Biomass and Bioenergy 2011;35:4060e74.
[19] OEAMTC. bersicht zuknftige Elektrofahrzeuge e Overview of future electric
vehicles; 2010.
[20] Volkswagen VW. Preise, ausstattung, technische daten - Price, equippment,
technical data; 2011.
[21] Taylor A. Science review of internal combustion engines. Energy Policy 2008;
36:4657e67.
[22] Boston Consulting Group. The Comeback of the Electric Car? - How real, how
soon, and what must happen next? o. J.
[23] Element Energy. Strategies for the uptake of electric vehicles and associated
infrastructure implications; 2009.
[24] McKinsey. Roads towards a low-carbon future: reducing CO2 emissions from
passenger vehicles in the global road transportation system; 2009.
[25] U.S. Energy Information Administration. AEO annual energy outlook 2011;
2011.
[26] Giblin S, McNabola A. Modelling the impacts of a carbon emission-
differentiated vehicle tax system on CO2 emissions intensity from new
vehicle purchases in Ireland. Energy Policy 2009;37:1404e11.