Subsidy scheme or price discount scheme? Mass adoption of electric vehicles under different market structures

This paper analyzes the electric-and-gasoline vehicle market under two different structures: monopoly and duopoly. Taking social welfare into account, the government offers a subsidy incentive scheme or a price discount incentive scheme to buyers of electric vehicles (EVs) to promote the adoption of EVs. We formulate a utility model composed of a population of consumers who make utility maximizing choices and manufacturers who set an optimal pricing that responds to the interventions of the government. Using this model, a framework for policy makers to find optimal subsidies or optimal price discount rates is developed. Unlike the monotonic relation in the monopoly setting, in the duopoly setting the relationship between consumers’ low-carbon awareness and EVs’ demand depends on the government’s policy. Although the demand for EVs, the consumer surplus, the environmental impact, and the social welfare are identical under two incentive schemes, the government prefers to implement a subsidy incentive scheme due to the lower expenditure involved. Furthermore, under a subsidy incentive scheme, EVs’ market in the monopoly setting has a smaller environmental impact than that in the duopoly setting. From the numerical tests, we show that results of social welfare comparison under two market structures depends on unit environmental impact of EV.

[1]  G. Perakis,et al.  Consumer Choice Model for Forecasting Demand and Designing Incentives for Solar Technology , 2011 .

[2]  Gendao Li,et al.  The value of dynamic pricing for cores in remanufacturing with backorders , 2013, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[3]  Patroklos Georgiadis,et al.  The impact of two-product joint lifecycles on capacity planning of remanufacturing networks , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[4]  Ying Rong,et al.  Toward Mass Adoption of Electric Vehicles: Impacts of the Range and Resale Anxieties , 2014 .

[5]  P. Kleindorfer,et al.  Sustainable Fleet Operations: The Collaborative Adoption of Electric Vehicles , 2011 .

[6]  Chuanwang Sun,et al.  Energy savings potential in China's industrial sector: From the perspectives of factor price distortion and allocative inefficiency , 2015 .

[7]  Tim Kraft,et al.  Replacement Decisions for Potentially Hazardous Substances , 2012 .

[8]  Ravi Subramanian,et al.  Sharing Responsibility for Product Recovery Across the Supply Chain , 2012 .

[9]  Jian Liu,et al.  Promoting electric automobiles: supply chain analysis under a government’s subsidy incentive scheme , 2013 .

[10]  Angappa Gunasekaran,et al.  Modelling and analysis of sustainable operations management: certain investigations for research and applications , 2014, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[11]  Amir M. Sharif,et al.  Exploring the role of supplier relationship management for sustainable operations: an OR perspective , 2014, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[12]  Serguei Netessine,et al.  Electric Vehicles with a Battery Switching Station: Adoption and Environmental Impact , 2013, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Jian Huang,et al.  Supply chain analysis under a price-discount incentive scheme for electric vehicles , 2014, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Wei Yan,et al.  Bricks vs. clicks: Which is better for marketing remanufactured products? , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  O. Cadot,et al.  Energy-Tax Changes and Competitiveness: The Role of Adaptive Capacity , 2015 .

[16]  L. V. Wassenhove,et al.  Sustainable Operations Management , 2005 .

[17]  S. Rosen,et al.  Monopoly and product quality , 1978 .

[18]  Sezer Ülkü,et al.  The Role of Modular Upgradability as a Green Design Strategy , 2011, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[19]  Zhimin Mao,et al.  Costs of Selected Policies to Address Air Pollution in China , 2015 .

[20]  M. Siddiqui,et al.  Environmental taxes and international spillovers: The case of a small open economy , 2015 .

[21]  Hong Kam Lo,et al.  A framework for estimating traffic emissions: The development of Passenger Car Emission Unit , 2016 .

[22]  M. Pisani,et al.  “Green” fuel tax on private transportation services and subsidies to electric energy. A model-based assessment for the main European countries , 2013 .

[23]  Mark S. Daskin,et al.  Carbon Footprint and the Management of Supply Chains: Insights From Simple Models , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[24]  Carlos Batlle,et al.  Electricity market-clearing prices and investment incentives: The role of pricing rules , 2015 .

[25]  Preyas S. Desai,et al.  Enabling the Willing: Consumer Rebates for Durable Goods , 2006 .

[26]  Ramteen Sioshansi,et al.  OR Forum - Modeling the Impacts of Electricity Tariffs on Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle Charging, Costs, and Emissions , 2012, Oper. Res..

[27]  Gérard P. Cachon Retail Store Density and the Cost of Greenhouse Gas Emissions , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[28]  Mark E. Ferguson,et al.  Is Leasing Greener than Selling? , 2011, Manag. Sci..

[29]  Yohanes Kristianto,et al.  Product architecture modularity implications for operations economy of green supply chains , 2014 .

[30]  Tim Kraft,et al.  The NGO's Dilemma: How to Influence Firms to Replace a Potentially Hazardous Substance , 2013, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[31]  Vedat Verter,et al.  Supply chain design for unlocking the value of remanufacturing under uncertainty , 2015, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  J. Sterman,et al.  Transition challenges for alternative fuel vehicle and transportation systems , 2006 .

[33]  Michael R. Galbreth,et al.  Product Reuse in Innovative Industries , 2013 .

[34]  Mark Ferguson,et al.  The Car Sharing Economy: Interaction of Business Model Choice and Product Line Design , 2016 .

[35]  Mark E. Ferguson,et al.  Relicensing as a Secondary Market Strategy , 2012, Manag. Sci..

[36]  Onur Kaya,et al.  Incentive and production decisions for remanufacturing operations , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[37]  Dmitry Krass,et al.  Environmental Taxes and the Choice of Green Technology , 2013 .