Integration of behavioral effects from vehicle choice models into long-term energy systems optimization models

Long-term energy systems models have been used extensively in energy planning and climate policy analysis. However, specifically in energy systems optimization models, heterogeneity of consumer preferences for competing energy technologies (e.g., vehicles), has not been adequately represented, leading to behaviorally unrealistic modeling results. This can lead to policy analysis results that are viewed by stakeholders as clearly deficient. This paper shows how heterogeneous consumer behavioral effects can be introduced into these models in the form of perceived disutility costs, to more realistically capture consumer choice in making technology purchase decisions. We developed a novel methodology that incorporates the theory of a classic consumer choice model into a commonly used long-term energy systems modeling framework using a case study of light-duty vehicles. A diverse set of consumer segments (thirty-six) is created to represent observable, identifiable differences in factors such as annual driving distances and attitude towards risks of new technology. Non-monetary or “disutility” costs associated with these factors are introduced to capture the differences in preferences across consumer segments for various technologies. We also create clones within each consumer segment to capture randomly distributed unobservable differences in preferences. We provide and review results for a specific example that includes external factors such as recharging/refueling station availability, battery size of electric vehicles, recharging time and perceived technology risks. Although the example is for light-duty vehicles in the US using a specific modeling system, this approach can be implemented more broadly to model the adoption of consumer technologies in other sectors or regions in similar energy systems modeling frameworks.

[1]  D. Greene.  How Consumers Value Fuel Economy: A Literature Review , 2010 .

[2]  Sten Karlsson.  What are the value and implications of two-car households for the electric car? , 2017 .

[3]  Nadia Maïzi,et al.  Integrating household behavior and heterogeneity into the TIMES-Households model , 2015 .

[4]  David M. Rocke,et al.  Variance-component-based nested logit specifications: Improved formulation, and practical microsimulation of random disturbance terms , 2016 .

[5]  Gabrial Anandarajah,et al.  UK MARKAL Model Documentation , 2007 .

[6]  Kalai Ramea,et al.  Achieving California's 80% greenhouse gas reduction target in 2050: Technology, policy and scenario analysis using CA-TIMES energy economic systems model , 2015 .

[7]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Formalizing best practice for energy system optimization modelling , 2017 .

[8]  Joseph F DeCarolis,et al.  How much do electric drive vehicles matter to future U.S. emissions? , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  J. Swisher,et al.  Exploring the gap : Top-down versus bottom-up analyses of the cost of mitigating global warming , 1993 .

[10]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Incorporating Behavioral Effects from Vehicle Choice Models into Bottom-Up Energy Sector Models , 2015 .

[11]  Sonia Yeh,et al.  Incorporating travel behaviour and travel time into TIMES energy system models , 2014 .

[12]  Francesco Moresino,et al.  SOCIO-MARKAL: Integrating energy consumption behavioral changes in the technological optimization framework , 2011 .

[13]  Chandra R. Bhat,et al.  A Self Instructing Course in Mode Choice Modeling: Multinomial and Nested Logit Models , 2006 .

[14]  Lena Neij,et al.  Evaluating energy efficiency policies with energy-economy models , 2010 .

[15]  N. L. Johnson,et al.  Continuous Multivariate Distributions: Models and Applications , 2005 .

[16]  Ann Wolverton,et al.  Evaluating the Consumer Response to Fuel Economy: A Review of the Literature , 2011 .

[17]  Adam Hawkes,et al.  Energy systems modeling for twenty-first century energy challenges , 2014 .

[18]  Sten Karlsson,et al.  Are multi-car households better suited for battery electric vehicles? Driving patterns and economics in Sweden and Germany , 2016 .

[19]  Christopher Yang,et al.  Improving the representation of modal choice into bottom-up optimization energy system models - The MoCho-TIMES model , 2018 .

[20]  Jonn Axsen,et al.  Anticipating plug-in hybrid vehicle energy impacts in California: Constructing consumer-informed recharge profiles , 2010 .

[21]  K. Train.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[22]  Andreas Schäfer,et al.  Introducing behavioral change in transportation into energy/economy/environment models , 2012 .

[23]  Moshe Ben-Akiva,et al.  Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand , 1985 .

[24]  Zhenhong Lin,et al.  Improving the behavioral realism of global integrated assessment models: An application to consumers’ vehicle choices , 2017 .