*Article* **How Policies Affect the Dissemination of Electric Passenger Cars Worldwide**

**Marina Siebenhofer \* , Amela Ajanovic and Reinhard Haas**

Energy Economics Group (EEG), Institute of Energy Systems and Electrical Drive, Vienna University of Technology (TU Wien), Gusshausstraße 25-29, E370, 1040 Vienna, Austria; ajanovic@eeg.tuwien.ac.at (A.A.); haas@eeg.tuwien.ac.at (R.H.)

**\*** Correspondence: siebenhofer@eeg.tuwien.ac.at

**Abstract:** Road transportation is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions. The EU set the target to reduce overall transport emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990. Electric mobility is considered a proper means to achieve this goal. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are a mature technology. The high investment costs, limited driving range and a charging infrastructure that is not extensive yet are currently the main challenges. This work analyses how policies affect the dissemination of BEVs in selected countries with remarkable market shares of BEVs. The core objective is to investigate how policies affect BEV economics compared to conventional car economics. Financial policies and their effects on BEVs for the major markets of China, the USA and Europe were analysed. To do so, the total cost of ownership (TCO) was calculated for each country. The major conclusions were: (i) The investment cost of a car had the most significant impact on the TCO; (ii) Low TCO as an incentive was not enough to ensure successful BEV dissemination; (iii) Nonmonetary incentives such as access to certain zones and the usage of bus lanes for BEVs combined with registration taxes, low electricity prices and high fuel prices were very favourable conditions.

**Keywords:** battery electric vehicles; emissions; electric mobility; policies; transport

### **1. Introduction**

The transport sector causes around 30% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU; thereof, 72% is road transport. In contrast to other sectors (energy, industry, residential, agriculture, forestry and fishing), traffic emissions have been increasing rapidly since 1990 [1].

Figure 1 shows the development of CO2 emissions in the transport sector (road, railway, aviation, other) for selected EU countries, over the period of 1990–2018, in relation to 1990. In most of the countries, emissions had been continuously increasing until 2007. After a financial crisis, emissions decreased in most of the countries. However, this decrease was followed by an emission-increasing trend starting from about 2013. Significant differences among countries could also be seen due to country-specific circumstances such as gross domestic product (GDP) and national policy framework.

If the number of conventional vehicles with internal combustion engines (ICEs) could be sharply reduced, the emissions from the transport sector would decrease. In contrast to ICEs, electric vehicles (EVs), especially battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), have zero emissions at the point of use and could significantly contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions in combination with electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES). In the best case, EVs could cause 75% to 90% lower GHG emissions than ICEs [2]. Furthermore, in combination with electricity from RES, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) could save about 65% to 70% in GHG emissions compared to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) [3].

**Citation:** Siebenhofer, M.; Ajanovic, A.; Haas, R. How Policies Affect the Dissemination of Electric Passenger Cars Worldwide. *Energies* **2021**, *14*, 2093. https://doi.org/10.3390/ en14082093

Academic Editor: Miguel-Angel Tarancon

Received: 30 January 2021 Accepted: 6 April 2021 Published: 9 April 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

**Figure 1.** Development of CO2 emissions from transport in selected EU countries [4].

Far-reaching arguments against switching to EVs are high investment costs compared to ICEs and technical limitations (e.g., limited driving range and charging infrastructure availability) [5]. The investment costs of an EV are about one-third higher in comparison to an ICE. Furthermore, the driving range of an EV is quite low, mostly about 130–250 km, compared to the 700 km range of an average ICE [6]. A requirement for the successful distribution of EVs is the availability of charging infrastructure. If this is not the case, range anxiety occurs [7].

Politicians have at least two options to address these problems. On the one hand, BEVs can be promoted directly by implementing monetary policies such as subsidies or with non-monetary ones such as the use of bus lanes for BEVs and free parking. On the other hand, BEVs can be pushed indirectly, e.g., through a CO2 tax on all fuels and higher registration taxes on conventional vehicles than on BEVs. Another legal option is driving bans for diesel and gasoline cars in cities or emission-free zones.

The core objectives of this paper are to analyse the current economic state of BEVs in comparison to conventional cars and to identify proper policies to overcome the major current barrier of high investment costs. Regarding economics, we investigated the total cost of ownership (TCO), including existing national policy instruments such as fuel and registration taxes as well as subsidies. The TCO was calculated for selected major countries worldwide. The selection of countries was based on their relevance so far regarding market penetration of BEVs such as the major BEV markets of China, California in the USA and the most important European countries (Austria, Germany, The Netherlands and Norway). For these countries, detailed economic analyses were conducted for two cases of cars, small and large ones.

Regarding proper policies to overcome major current barriers, measures in different dimensions (subsidies, standards, taxes and legal frameworks) and applicable monetary and non-monetary incentives to promote BEVs (and reduce the number of ICEs) are elaborated upon. Furthermore, fuel and electricity prices as well as BEV distribution in selected countries (China, Japan, the USA, UK and some European countries (Austria, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway)) are examined. Moreover, amounts of subsidies, exemptions from taxes and non-monetary measures for the selected countries are elaborated upon.

The major new contribution of this paper is that a comprehensive and up-to-date survey, discussion and assessment on all policies existing in major countries regarding market deployment of BEVs—direct and indirect measures, monetary and non-monetary policies, technical and behavioural—is conducted and completed by a sound and detailed economic analysis. Hence, it also closes the existing research gap regarding state-ofthe-art economics and the impact of promotion policies regarding BEVs. To the best of our knowledge, no such comprehensive analysis exists. Of course, policies to support E-Mobility have been investigated in several previous studies.

Rietman et al. [8] dealt with political measures and how they promoted E-Mobility. The study investigated the effectiveness of measures in 20 countries. The authors stated that cooperation between public and private sectors was essential to promote EVs. Moreover, monetary measures, in combination with measures for the charging infrastructure, were highly effective. Government measures suggested that government policies reflected the preferences of consumers. Furthermore, countries with higher purchasing power also had higher EV penetration. Cansino et al. [9] provided an overview of the most important measures to promote E-Mobility in the EU-28. The authors concluded that in addition to financial incentives for purchasing and supporting R&D projects, tax and infrastructure measures were the most effective ways to promote EVs. In addition, they found that in countries where CO2-based taxation had been introduced, penetration rates were higher. Dijk et al. [10] examined the socio-technical development of E-Mobility. They summarised that E-Mobility was suffering from high oil prices, carbon limits, car-sharing and intermodality. Moreover, the EV market was mainly dependent on the progress of batteries, measures to reduce CO2 emissions, new value propositions by companies and the image of EVs. Held et al. [11] analysed mobility policies to increase adoption rates of e-vehicles in 15 EU cities. They found that policies that had a more substantial impact on the TCO of EVs, combined with incentives for installing charging infrastructure and a public power grid combined with push factors that make the use of conventional cars unattractive, led to beneficial effects. Incentives should always have been linked to deincentives; isolated measures were less effective. Gass et al. [12] analysed alternative policy instruments to promote EVs in Austria in their 2011 study. They concluded that up-front price support worked better than taxation systems. Moreover, significant learning effects should reduce the cost of EVs in the future, which can be achieved primarily by promoting research. Wang et al. [13] investigated incentive measures and their influence on the market share of EVs. They examined which measures, other than highly effective subsidies, could drive EV penetration. Charging infrastructure, fuel price, and access to bus lanes for EVs were key factors in driving EV penetration. In summary, the most important factor was not direct subsidies but road priority (access to high-occupancy vehicle lanes (HOVs) and bus lanes). The study by Vilchez et al. [14] identified factors that influenced the EV market in Europe. They concluded that the purchase price of EVs was still a barrier. Consumers preferred government incentives. In addition, socio-cultural characteristics of consumers also influenced purchase intentions. The impact of energy policies on scenarios regarding GHG emission reduction in passenger car mobility in the EU-15 was analysed by Ajanovic/Haas. The core message was that policymakers must set clear and rigorous priorities to reduce CO2 emissions. The most important goals were to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption [5,15]. Cherchi [6] provided a work about the measurement of the effect of informational and normative conformity for EVs compared to ICEs. She summarised that social conformity effects such as advice from non-experts to potential buyers were highly effective for the dissemination of EVs. Such effects could compensate for low driving ranges of EVs or differences in the purchase price. Furthermore, a combination of free/reduced parking fees with reserved parking spots was highly effective in spreading EVs. Palmer et al. [16] showed the impact of ownership costs on market share by calculating a TCO over a 16-year period. Among other findings, they found that long-term government support was essential to promote the dissemination of EVs.

In this article, an examination of how policies affect the distribution of BEVs and ICEs in selected countries is provided. The methods of approach are given in Section 2. A general overview of energy policy instruments in transport that affect the promotion of

BEVs is given in Section 3. Recent developments of BEVs are stated in Section 4. Incentives for BEVs in selected countries and a comparison of these is provided in Section 5. To see how current policies affect ICEs' and BEVs' costs from an individual perspective, a TCO is calculated for each of the selected countries; the results can be found in Section 6. Finally, the conclusions and future perspectives for further developing BEVs are given in Section 7.

### **2. Method of Approach**

One of the arguments against switching to BEVs is high investment costs [6]. To compare the economic performance of an ICE with a BEV, a TCO was calculated. With the calculation of a TCO, direct and indirect mobility costs could be shown from an individual perspective. In this way, the effects of monetary measures and sales could be identified [17]. The aim was to identify the difference between ICEs' and BEVs' costs, considering the capital costs, operating and maintenance costs and electricity/fuel costs.

To analyse the economics of the BEVs, the TCO was calculated in € per year. For the calculation, 12,500 km per year was assumed [18]. The TCO in € per year was calculated as follows:

$$\text{TCO} = \text{C}\_{\text{Cap}} + \text{C}\_{\text{O\&M}} + \text{C}\_{\text{E}} \left[ \text{€/year} \right] \tag{1}$$

CCap is the cost of capital for the vehicle including purchase subsidies, either ICE or BEV [€/year]; CO&M is the cost of operation and maintenance [€/year], which includes the insurance, maintenance and repair costs; parking tolls and road charges are not considered; and CE is the cost of energy, either fuel or electricity [€/year].

The capital cost per year depending on the initial investment cost IC0 (including subsidies τsub) and the capital recovery factor (CRF) α is:

$$\mathbf{C\_{Cap}} = (\mathbf{IC\_0} - \tau\_{\text{sub}}) \times \alpha \left[ \mathbf{€/year} \right] \tag{2}$$

α describes the ratio of a constant annuity to the present value of this annuity's receipt for a given time. It is calculated using an interest rate z and a depreciation period n. With the annuity method, the depreciation costs and annual capital costs are determined with the same recovery factor. The depreciation period is assumed to be eight years, the same as the lifetime of vehicles. This period also covers the warranty period for a battery for driving distances between 80,000 and 24,000 km. An interest rate of 5% is assumed, as this is a standard interest rate from a bank loan [19].

$$\alpha = \frac{\mathbf{z}\left(1+\mathbf{z}\right)^{\mathbf{n}}}{\left(1+\mathbf{z}\right)^{\mathbf{n}}-1} \tag{3}$$

The cost of energy depends on the price for the fuel or electricity pf [€/kWh or €/l], the km driven per year vkm and the fuel intensity FI [kWh/km].

$$\mathbf{C}\_{\rm E} = \mathbf{p}\_{\rm f} \times \mathbf{vkm} \times \text{FI} \, [\![\mathbf{f}\!/\text{year}]\!] \tag{4}$$

The fuel price is the sum of the net price pnet; the value-added tax (VAT) τVAT, which, in the EU, was in the range from 17% to 27% in 2020 [20]; CO2 based tax τCO2 and an excise tax on fuels τExcise.

$$\mathbf{p}\_{\rm f} = \mathbf{p}\_{\rm net} + \boldsymbol{\tau}\_{\rm VAT} + \boldsymbol{\tau}\_{\rm CC2} + \boldsymbol{\tau}\_{\rm Excise} \left[ \boldsymbol{\xi} / \mathbf{kWh} \right] \tag{5}$$

In the following, we apply this method to calculate TCO for two specific cases (small and large cars), wherein we compare the TCO for selected countries with some relevance of BEVs as described in Section 4. This comparison was made to identify the current level of the economics of BEVs compared to conventional vehicles. Note that all currently applied policy instruments in our state of knowledge—taxes and subsidies—were considered and included in this investigation.

The first case included a comparison of TCO for small cars, the Volkswagen (VW) Golf and the VW E-Golf. We chose approximately the same type of vehicle to guarantee a valid comparison. Comparability was given due to similar engine power (VW Golf–110 kW, VW E-Golf–100 kW) and similar weight (VW Golf—1211 kg, VW E-Golf—585 kg) of the compared cars; see Table 1. In the second case, the TCO was calculated for bigger cars, an Audi A5 and a Tesla Model 3. The comparability was also mad through similar engine power (Audi A5—195 kW, Tesla Model 3—211 kW) and similar weight (Audi A5—1600 kg, Tesla Model 3—1684 kg).


**Table 1.** Technical specifications for vehicles analysed.

In addition to the technical components, which show the comparability of the models, the price difference between the models should also be discussed at this point. The price difference between the two models in the first case (VW Golf: €18,640; E-Golf: €16,540) was approximately €2100. In the second case (Audi A5: 34,220 €; Tesla Model 3: 29,870 €) the difference was about 4350 €. Apart from that, the Tesla Model 3 was a more exclusive model than the Audi A5. These factors should be taken into account.

Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of a change in the interest rate or the depreciation time on the annual costs of a vehicle.

### **3. A Survey on Energy Policies in Transport**

In this chapter, an overview of possible policies and measures to promote E-Mobility, focusing on BEVs, is provided. First of all, it is shown which policies exist and on which segment of the transport sector, e.g., mobility, they act. Figure 2 shows how mobility and policy measures in different dimensions interact. It depicts the complexity and the connections between policies and the service mobility itself. In the following examples, policies related to energy, infrastructure and vehicles are given.

1. Energy

To reduce emissions from the transport sector, it is essential that energy used in vehicles comes from low-carbon and renewable energy sources (such as sun, wind, biomass). If this is not ensured, then the vehicles, both ICEs and EVs, are powered by fossil fuels. With the promotion of renewable energy and renewable energy systems (RES), the vehicle fleet could become more sustainable. With, for example, taxes on fuel, mobility with conventional cars becomes more expensive. With standards and, for instance, a minimum of fuel intensity, mobility becomes again more environmentally friendly.

2. Infrastructure

The infrastructure can be directly influenced by allowing the use of bus lanes for BEVs. Other examples are free and/or reserved parking spaces for BEVs or emission-free zones where BEVs are permitted to access. However, most important is to develop the necessary charging infrastructure.

3. Vehicle

For example, BEVs can be promoted directly with subsidies on the purchase price, on the insurance or indirectly with a scrapping premium on ICEs. Exemptions from various taxes like the registration tax, the import tax or the VAT are further promotion options to push down vehicle prices. Furthermore, the total fleet can be promoted through CO2 regulations, for example, by setting a limit value in gCO2/km for fleet consumption.

Figure 3 shows four dimensions, which are fundamental for energy policy interventions in general. In principle, the promotion of BEVs can be affected in four different ways, either financial through subsidies and taxes or regulatory through standards or legal frameworks. Figure 3 also includes specific measures for BEVs in the four dimensions.

**Figure 3.** The four major dimensions of energy policies with a special focus on transport.

As shown in Table 2, policy instruments that can be implemented can be divided into monetary incentives and non-monetary incentives. Furthermore, the columns with the terms "direct policies" and "indirect policies" describe whether the incentives affect the BEVs directly or indirectly from an individual drivers' perspective. These possible incentives, in addition to specific measures implemented in countries, can be found in Section 5.

### 1. Monetary Incentives

Subsidies: Often, the government grants money off the purchase list price of BEVs. Other possibilities are discounts on car insurance or a so-called scrapping premium if the old ICE car is scrapped and in the best case, a BEV is purchased instead. Furthermore, the state can subsidise electricity prices, which affect the charging prices via the public loading infrastructure or mainly for the infrastructure at home.

Tax payments: In almost all countries, there are exemptions from taxes for BEVs (tax benefits). The proportion of tax to vehicle price/operation varies widely between countries. The exemption from car purchase taxes and registration taxes such as the valueadded tax for BEVs is usual. Registration taxes are often based on the CO2 emissions of a vehicle. Mostly, customers must pay a motor vehicle tax for car ownership; exemptions are also common.

In comparison, ICEs are exempt from taxes if they fall below a specific CO2 or kW limit. In addition, there are electricity taxes to pay. Indirect policy instruments that affect BEVs monetarily are CO2 taxes on petrol and diesel or high registration taxes on ICEs.

Other: BEVs can often park free of charge. Furthermore, often exemptions/reductions for tolls, congestion charging or low emission zone charging are given.

### 2. Non-monetary Incentives

Standards: Mandatory standards that affect BEVs' spread are stipulating minimum energy levels (energy efficiency standards) or maximum energy use levels (maximum energy consumption) on vehicles [21]. On the other side, indirect standards are CO2 regulations (e.g., 95 gCO2/km within the EU) or standards on diesel concerning the fuel intensity.

Legal: Furthermore, some laws/regulations allow EVs to use low/free-emission zones or bus lanes. These permits also have an indirect effect, as they exclude ICEs from using low/free-emission zones.

Other: Other non-monetary incentives are national EV sales targets. Because of the objectives, governments need to offer incentives for EV dissemination. Reserved parking spaces for EVs are common. Free parking for EVs is also indirect, as it excludes ICEs from using them. In Scandinavia, EVs are sometimes allowed to travel free of charge by ferry, and in some places, there are also free electric charging stations. Exemptions from road charges can also be given.

Which of the policies will be applied is very dependent on regional differences and country specific circumstances, such as GDP and national policy targets. Countries with higher GDP are able to provide higher subsidies and tax reductions. For countries with lower GDP, indirect monetary measures could be more attractive.


**Table 2.** Policy instruments to promote E-Mobility [19,22–35].

### **4. Recent Developments of BEVs**

In this chapter, the BEV market share in selected countries—the USA, China, Japan and some European countries—is highlighted. For the selected countries and the rest of the world, global electric car sales are also stated. Furthermore, a comparison between fuel and electricity prices is provided.

Figure 4 shows that Norway had the worldwide highest market share of BEVs. There had been a rapid share increase in Norway since 2013. In 2010, the market share was only 0.3%, but it was already 45.6% in 2020. The rate increased by a factor of 152 in 10 years. It is illustrated that The Netherlands, in second place, also had a rapid increase in BEV market share rates in recent years. While in 2014, the market share in The Netherlands amounted to only 0.7%, in 2019, it had increased to 15.2%. However, in 2020, the market share fell to 10.2%. As shown in Figure 5, Sweden also had a high market share, with only 0.8% in 2015, but the market share increased rapidly to 7.9% in 2020. Throughout the EU, the market share of BEVs was relatively low, at 4.2% in 2020. Similarly, China (3.9% in 2019), Japan

(0.5% in 2019) and the USA (1.5% in 2019) in 2019 had very low BEV shares. The decline in BEV market share in Japan from 0.6% in 2018 to 0.5% was mainly due to the high purchase prices of BEVs. In addition, there were very few fast chargers that were publicly available in 2019. Furthermore, there were very limited tax incentives for the purchase of BEVs in Japan. [36]. Figure 5 was added to illustrate the developments in the markets in countries with market shares below 6%.

**Figure 4.** Battery electric vehicle market share in new registrations in major countries [36,37].

**Figure 5.** Battery electric vehicle market share in new registrations in major countries with a market share below 6% [36,37].

Figure 6 illustrates global electric car sales in major countries. As is shown in Figure 6, China had the highest amount of BEV sales. In 2011, the sales amounted to 0.01 million. Since then, the rate of EVs increased in 2018 to 1.18 million. In 2019, it was 1.10 million. The EU followed China with an amount of 0.01 million EV sales in 2011, 0.40 million sales in 2018 and 0.59 million in 2020. The third key market was the USA, with 0.36 million EV sales in 2018 and 0.22 million in 2019. Throughout the world, the EV sales amounted to 2.3 million with a market share of 3.2% in 2019. Preliminary numbers for global BEV sale in 2020 are also depicted in Figure 6.

**Figure 6.** Global electric car sales in major countries [38].

In general, petrol prices are strongly related to the overall economic situation of a country. Prices vary from country to country, sometimes considerably. The higher the GDP, the higher the petrol and diesel prices. The USA is an exception to this with a high GDP but very low taxes on mineral oil products. The average gasoline price worldwide was 1.05 USD per litre in 2020 [39]. The attractiveness of BEVs depends strongly on fossil fuel prices and electricity prices. A good example is Norway, where electricity prices are very low in relation to fuel prices.

Figure 7 illustrates electricity prices in comparison to fossil fuel costs in passenger car transport in 2020. It can be said that regarding efficiency, one litre of gasoline was comparable with 8.94 kWh and one litre of diesel with 9.97 kWh. The lowest electricity price could be found in China, with 0.07 € per kWh, and in Norway, with 0.08 € per kWh. The largest difference between the electricity price and the gasoline price was in Norway. Germany had the highest electricity price, with 0.30 € per kWh, while the average price in the EU was 0.21 € per kWh. The fuel prices were only lower in a few countries than the electricity prices, e.g., in China and some European countries (both in Norway and diesel in The Netherlands). The lowest fuel prices were in the USA, where one kWh of gasoline cost 0.06 €. The highest costs for fuel could be found in the EU. In The Netherlands, a kWh of gasoline cost 0.18 € and in Norway, 0.17 €. The average gasoline price within the EU amounted to 1.14 € per kWh and the average diesel price to 1.12 € per litre. Usually, gasoline prices were higher than diesel prices due to higher taxes on gasoline.

**Figure 7.** Fuel and electricity prices in €/kWh in the USA, China and selected European countries in 2020 [39,40].

### **5. Comparison of Incentives for BEVs in Selected Countries—EU, USA, China, Japan**

In this chapter, a comparison of incentives for BEVs in selected countries—the USA, China, Japan and some European countries—for the year 2020 is provided. It is shown how different BEVs were promoted in selected countries. Note that especially all of the non-monetary measures were quite generic. Just because one country offered free parking for BEVs did not mean that BEVs could park for free at all parking spaces. Furthermore, incentives are changing all the time. Incentives that were valid for 2020 can be replaced by new ones or completely abolished in 2021.

As can be seen in Table 3, in all countries considered, except Norway, the customer got a purchase subsidy on a new BEV list price. Furthermore, the exemption of different taxes, like the VAT, registration tax (based on CO2 emissions, bonus/malus), consumption tax and annual taxes (road and circulation taxes) was very common. Companies often received company tax benefits when purchasing BEVs. There were non-monetary incentives in all countries to make the purchase and the use of a BEV more attractive. Free parking and the usage of bus lanes were the most popular measures.

In Austria, a purchase subsidy of 5000 € on the list price of BEVs and an exemption from all car-related taxes was given [41]. Moreover, the promotion of 600 € for a homeinstalled wallbox was granted. [31]. In France, there was a very high subsidy, up to 7000 €, on a BEV purchase price. Moreover, the exemption from VAT and registration tax was guaranteed. The customer got tax credits for installing charging spots, and for changing from an ICE to a BEV, a scrapping premium was given [42]. In Germany, the purchase subsidy for a BEV amounted up to 6000 €, and there were the usual car-related tax exemptions [43]. In The Netherlands, a 4000 € subsidy on the list price of a BEV was guaranteed. The usual EU exemptions for BEVs were given [41]. Norway was unusual because there was no purchase subsidy on BEVs. However, BEVs were exempted from all car-related taxes. Furthermore, more non-monetary measures existed than in other countries: for example, no charges on toll roads or ferries, a maximum of 50% of the total amount on ferries and the usual measures like free parking and bus lane use [44]. Moreover, the customer got 815 € support for home charging infrastructure [45]. Sweden guaranteed up to 5700 € for a BEV. In addition to the usual exemptions from the taxes, a climate bonus of 5961 € on Zero-CO2 emission cars was given [41].

In China, the purchase subsidy was between 2400 € and 3300 €. Furthermore, exemption from VAT and the vehicle and vessel tax were given. In China, BEVs were excluded from registration restrictions and driving bans and license plate quotas [46,47]. Japan granted a subsidy with up to 3154 € on the BEV's purchase price. However, BEVs were exempted from all car-related taxes such as the automobile tax, acquisition and road taxes [48]. In the United Kingdom, the subsidy on the purchase price amounted up to 3322 €. There were various tax benefits, and in London, BEVs got discounts/exemptions by entering the Congestion Zone and Ultra Low Emission Zone [49]. In the USA, there were federal subsidies of 2041 €; the local subsidies granted in the USA differed from state to state. For example, in California, there were additional rebates of 2450 €. The VAT of 8.25% was low; furthermore, the EV customer could get a federal tax credit between 2041 € and 6124 € [22].

**Table 3.** Incentives in selected countries in the year 2020 [12,21–30,43–45,50–52].



**Table 3.** *Cont.*


**Table 3.** *Cont.*

All data apply to a vehicle purchased/used in 2020. \* Quite generic, for example: Just because one country offered free parking for BEVs did not mean that BEVs could park for free at all parking spaces.

### **6. Results: Economic Assessment**

In this chapter, the focus is on the interpretation of the results from the TCO. It is of particular interest to analyse the differences in the mobility costs between the selected countries (China, the USA (California), and some European countries (Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway) for the year 2020. A look at the composition of an individual's expenses is given in detail. An examination of the differences between the cost composition of ICEs and BEVs is stated, and a general look at the contrast of the chosen cars is provided. In addition, a calculation of TCO of BEVs without subsidies on investment costs was done. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the impact of a change in the interest rate or the depreciation time on the annual costs of a vehicle.

First of all, the differences in the purchase price between ICEs and BEVs must be mentioned. In Case 1, the acquisition costs for a VW Golf, exclusive taxes, amounted to 18,640 € in the selected countries. The purchase price for a comparable E-Golf was slightly lower, at 16,540 €. Case 2 showed a larger difference between the purchase price for the Audi A5 (34,220 €) and the Tesla Model 3 (29,870 €). As already discussed in Section 2, the vehicles were comparable despite the price difference due to similar size and engine power.

Figure 8 (Case 1—Volkswagen Golf vs. Volkswagen E-Golf) and Figure 9 (Case 2— Audi A5 vs. Tesla Model 3) shows the TCO per year of an ICE and a BEV in selected countries. The costs include subsidies and taxes. A depreciation period of eight years and an interest rate of 5% were assumed.

In Case 1 (see Figure 8), total costs per year for a VW Golf ranged from 2520 € in the USA to 3960 € in Norway. For a VW E-Golf, the TCO per year ranged from 2650 € in the USA to 2980 € in Norway.

In Case 2 (see Figure 9), TCO per year for an Audi A5 ranged from 3990 € in the USA to 5960 € in Norway and Austria. For a Tesla Model 3, the costs were between 2760 € in China and 4460 € in Norway.

**Figure 8.** Total cost of ownership (TCO) (Case 1)—VW Golf vs. E-Golf.

**Figure 9.** TCO (Case 2)—Audi A5 vs. Tesla Model 3.

In both cases, the lowest prices for the ICE were in the USA and the highest in Norway (Case 1) and The Netherlands (Case 2). The lowest costs for BEVs were in the USA (Case 1) and China (Case 2). The highest costs could be found in Norway, Germany and the USA. Case 2 shows the lowest price in the USA for the Tesla Model 3. However, the low costs of the Tesla Model 3 in the USA was only because Tesla was exempted from subsidies.

The differences in the costs were due to the divergencies in the costs of capital (CCap), operating & maintenance (CO&M) and energy (CE).

Figure 10 (Case 1) and Figure 11 (Case 2) illustrate the composition of costs in detail. It also shows how high the costs would be without subsidies. Overall, the most significant price factor was the CCap, followed by the CE. The CO&M had the lowest impact on the total costs. In the following. detailed results for selected countries are presented.

**Figure 10.** TCO: Case 1—Composition of the TCO in Case 1 for 2020.

**Figure 11.** TCO: Case 2—Composition of the TCO in Case 2 for 2020.

The Netherlands, Austria

As shown in Figures 10 and 11, The Netherlands and Austria had very similar TCO. In The Netherlands, BEVs, per year, were slightly more expensive, and an ICE slightly

less expensive than in Austria. The Netherlands had a VAT of 21%, and Austria, a VAT of 20%. A significant difference could be found in the amount of registration taxes. In The Netherlands, registration taxes were almost four times higher than in Austria. Among the countries considered, registration taxes were only higher in Norway. However, the ownership tax in Austria was higher than in any of the other countries considered. Gasoline prices in The Netherlands were the highest within the selected countries, but electricity prices were in the midfield and lower than in Austria. Austria granted a 5000 € subsidy, The Netherlands, a 6000 € subsidy for a BEV. The annual costs for the vehicles considered were very similar. The costs of a BEV in The Netherlands had more impact on the BEV market share than in Austria (in The Netherlands 10.2%, Austria 6% in 2020). The Netherlands showed that the high cost for a BEV could be compensated for through high registration taxes combined with subsidies and high gasoline prices.

Germany, China

In Germany and China, the annual costs of an ICE and BEV were approximately the same. Germany granted the highest subsidies, with 6000 € for a BEV, among the countries considered. In comparison, China granted 3000 € for a BEV. In China, the VAT, at 16%, is rather low; in Germany, the VAT is 19%. In Germany, there are no registration taxes on ICEs; the ownership tax is also very low. In addition, in China, the registration tax for an ICE is very low. However, there was a lottery procedure there, so whether an ICE could be registered at all was a random decision. In China, electricity prices were the lowest within the selected countries (0.07 €/kWh); fuel prices were also low. Only in the USA was the fuel price even lower than in China. In Germany, electricity prices were the highest within the compared countries (0.31 €/kWh). The BEV market share in China was 3.9% in 2019; in Germany, it was 1.8%. An average level of subsidies and low registration taxes in combination with low electricity prices thus seemed to have a higher impact than high subsidies in combination with low taxes. China also strongly promoted BEVs with the lottery process.

### Norway

Norway is considered separately at this point. Norway had the largest BEV market share worldwide, with 45.6% in 2020. Nevertheless, the annual costs for a BEV were very high. On the other hand, ICEs were much more expensive than in the other countries considered. This was due to very high registration taxes and high gasoline prices. Only in The Netherlands was gasoline price higher. The costs of electricity, on the contrary, were very low (0.08 €/kWh). Lower electricity prices in the selected countries existed only in China (0.07 €/kWh). In Norway, there were no subsidies for BEVs granted. However, it balanced itself out again. Nowhere else were so many monetary measures granted to BEVs as in Norway. The VAT (25%) was, for the EU-average (21%), rather high. Norway showed that monetary measures, combined with high registration taxes on ICEs, had a high impact on disseminating BEVs.

USA (California)

The USA (California) had a unique position in terms of the cost of ICEs. The prices were much lower than in the other selected countries due to the very low VAT of 8.25%. Additionally, there were no ownership taxes on ICEs. Furthermore, the gasoline price (0.07 €/kWh) was the lowest within the selected countries, and the electricity price was in the midfield. For a BEV, there was a 5500 € subsidy granted; this was the second-highest value within the compared countries. However, Tesla and General Motors were exempted from the federal tax credit. In the USA, very few non-monetary measures were provided for BEVs.

Apart from the individual situation in selected countries, there were differences between the two cases that needed to be considered. As described briefly in the introduction to this Chapter, this was due to the cars' different purchase prices. The differences can be explained as follows:

In Case 1, the TCO for an ICE and BEV was approximately equal. The purchase price for a VW Golf in, for example, Austria amounted to 18,670 €, and for an E-Golf, 30,090 €. However, there were subsidies for the E-Golf in the amount of 5000 €. In addition, the VW Golf price got higher because of the VAT (20%), registration tax and ownership tax on ICEs. Nevertheless, the slightly lower electricity costs could not compensate for the higher fuel costs. As a result, the E-Golf cost more than the VW Golf in Austria.

Case 2 showed large differences in the TCO of a BEV and an ICE. The net price of the Audi A5 in Austria for example, amounted to 34,280 €, and of the Tesla Model 3, to 29,920 €. The price difference between the cars was not as high as in Case 1. The Audi A5 cost more than the Tesla Model 3. Austria guaranteed the same amount of subsidies (5000 €) for the Tesla Model 3. On the other hand, the Tesla Model 3 consumed 0.16 kWh/km, which was similar to the VW E-Golf.

The price margins between ICEs and BEVs were reflected in the final results. This explained the large differences between costs of ICEs and BEVs when comparing the two cases.

In the following, we would like to show cost composition, without taking subsidies on the purchase price into account, using the examples of Austria, Norway and California. Cost allocations without subsidies for all countries considered are implemented in Figure 10 (Case 1) and Figure 11 (Case 2).

In Austria, in Case 1, the annual costs of 2860 € for a VW E-Golf would amount to 3230 € per year without subsidies. The E-Golf would be cheaper than the comparable VW Golf at 3530 € per year. Taking Case 2 into consideration, the annual cost of 2850 € for a Tesla Model 3 would be 3220 € without subsidies. A comparable Audi A5 would cost 5950 € per year. Therefore, in this case, the EV without subsidies would still be even much cheaper than ICE.

Norway was the only country considered where no subsidies were granted. Nevertheless, BEVs were much cheaper than comparable conventional cars. In no other country considered was the difference between ICEs and comparable BEVs higher than in Norway.

In California, in Case 1, the annual costs for a VW E-Golf without subsidies would amount to 3050 €. The VW E-Golf would be more expensive than the comparable VW Golf with yearly costs of 2520 €. Case 2 showed a different situation. Without subsidies, the Tesla Model 3 would cost 3040 € per year. Therefore, it was cheaper than the Audi A5, with an annual cost of 3990 €.

This demonstrated that subsidies had a significant impact on TCO.

Sensitivity analyses were done to see how depreciation time and the interest rate affected the costs. In the first step, the parameter for the depreciation time was changed. Thus, a period of 6 years and a period of 10 years were used for the calculation. The interest rate of 5% was not changed. In the second step, the interest rate parameters were changed to 4% and 6%. The depreciation time of 8 years was not changed.

The following effects of the interest rate were found: If the interest rate was set to 4%, the costs changed positively (the annual costs become lower). Conversely, an interest rate of 6% had a negative effect on costs (annual costs become higher).

A change in the depreciation time had the following effects: If a depreciation time of 6 years was assumed, the costs changed slightly positively (the annual costs became lower). Conversely, a depreciation time of 10 years had a slightly negative effect on costs (annual costs became higher).

A change in the interest rate parameter had a stronger effect on the annual costs than a change in the depreciation time.

In summary, the annual cost of an ICE was the highest in Norway, The Netherlands and Austria. In the USA (California), China and Germany, the annual costs for an ICE were the lowest. The high costs of conventional cars in Norway and The Netherlands were mainly due to the very high fossil fuel prices and registration taxes. In contrast, fuel prices in the USA (California) and China were very low.

In Norway, the high costs of BEVs were due to the lack of subsidies; in Germany, it was due to very high electricity prices. The very high BEV market share (52% in 2020) in Norway was explained by the fact that there were additional rebates for home charging infrastructure and more non-monetary measures than anywhere else as well as the high registration taxes on ICE.

In the USA (California), the annual cost of a BEV was the lowest. In Case 2, the high cost of the Tesla 3 was an exception because Tesla, in particular, was exempt from subsidies. Electricity prices were in the lower middle range; subsidies were quite high. Nevertheless, the market share of BEVs was only 1.5%. Low annual costs for a BEV were also found in China (market share 3.9% in 2019), which was due to very low electricity prices. This demonstrated that low TCO was not enough to ensure successful BEV dissemination.

### **7. Conclusions**

Current policy strategies have a much higher impact on the dissemination of BEVs than pure private decisions [53]. It is essential to identify the most effective policies and provide recommendations for policymakers.

Today, almost no electric passenger cars purchased without policy interventions can be seen. The TCO analysis showed that investment costs of the vehicle itself had the most significant impact on the TCO and hence, on the unfavourable economics of BEVs. As demonstrated by the examples of Norway and The Netherlands, the number of BEVs deployed was highest in countries where proper policy measures are installed.

Norway had the highest BEV market share worldwide. Nevertheless, the annual costs for a BEV in Norway were very high. ICEs were also much more expensive than in the other selected countries considered. It was shown that measures such as the increase of prices for ICEs through high registration taxes and high fuel prices and non-monetary incentives such as access to certain zones and the usage of bus lanes for BEVs were highly effective. Furthermore, Norway's electricity prices were very low. The Netherlands also showed that the high cost of a BEV could be compensated for through high registration taxes and high gasoline prices. In addition, high subsidies were granted on BEVs in The Netherlands.

Low costs for BEVs alone did not ensure high EV dissemination. Nevertheless, the high price of BEVs was still a barrier [14]. Non-monetary incentives, combined with indirect policies such as high registration taxes and high fuel prices, are highly effective. In addition, it could be identified that incentives such as low electricity costs should always be linked to de-incentives such as high fuel prices [11]. All of these incentives are highly dependent on policy intervention (but also on spatial conditions).

The analysis of the TCO also demonstrated that a change in the interest parameter had a stronger effect on the annual costs of a vehicle than the depreciation time. It follows that a reduction in the depreciation time will probably not lead to a remarkable reduction in costs.

Other factors for the successful diffusion of BEVs that were not considered in this paper are the high impact of charging infrastructure, the GDP and CO2-based taxes [8,9,11]. It is recommended that up-front price support works better than taxation systems [53]. In addition, essential are the technological progress of batteries and the image of BEVs [6,10].

Finally, the following recommendations for policy makers to reduce CO2-emissions are summarised. These must be clearly and rigorously prioritized [15]. Forcing electric mobility in private passenger car transport requires policy interferences at least in the following dimensions:


Further recommendations based on other studies:


Summing up, policy measures in different dimensions will be the major driving force for increasing BEVs' deployment in the future.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualisation, M.S. and R.H.; methodology, M.S. and A.A.; formal analysis, M.S.; investigation, M.S. and A.A.; resources, M.S. and A.A.; data curation, M.S. and A.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.; writing—review and editing, M.S., A.A. and R.H.; visualisation, M.S..; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through project ESR17-067.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** MDPI Research Data Policies.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **References**


## *Article* **Electric Mobility in Cities: The Case of Vienna**

**Amela Ajanovic \*, Marina Siebenhofer and Reinhard Haas**

Energy Economics Group, Vienna University of Technology, Gußhausstraße 25-29, 1040 Vienna, Austria; siebenhofer@eeg.tuwien.ac.at (M.S.); haas@eeg.tuwien.ac.at (R.H.)

**\*** Correspondence: ajanovic@eeg.tuwien.ac.at; Tel.: +43-(0)1-58801-370-364

**Abstract:** Environmental problems such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions are especially challenging in urban areas. Electric mobility in different forms may be a solution. While in recent years a major focus was put on private electric vehicles, e-mobility in public transport is already a very well-established and mature technology with a long history. The core objective of this paper is to analyze the economics of e-mobility in the Austrian capital of Vienna and the corresponding impact on the environment. In this paper, the historical developments, policy framework and scenarios for the future development of mobility in Vienna up to 2030 are presented. A major result shows that in an ambitious scenario for the deployment of battery electric vehicles, the total energy demand in road transport can be reduced by about 60% in 2030 compared to 2018. The major conclusion is that the policies, especially subsidies and emission-free zones will have the largest impact on the future development of private and public e-mobility in Vienna. Regarding the environmental performance, the most important is to ensure that a very high share of electricity used for electric mobility is generated from renewable energy sources.

**Keywords:** battery electric vehicles; public transport; emissions; policies

**Citation:** Ajanovic, A.; Siebenhofer, M.; Haas, R. Electric Mobility in Cities: The Case of Vienna. *Energies* **2021**, *14*, 217. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/en14010217

Received: 8 December 2020 Accepted: 28 December 2020 Published: 4 January 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

### **1. Introduction**

Globally, cities generate about 80% of the GDP, consume about 75% of global primary energy, and cause more than 70% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions [1]. The number of the urban population is rapidly increasing worldwide, from 751 million in 1950 to 4.2 billion in 2018. It is likely to reach about 5.1 billion by 2030 [2]. In Europe, the majority of citizens live in urban areas, and for their daily life, they require some kind of private or public mobility. Urban mobility is an important facilitator for economic growth, employment and development. In the EU, urban mobility already accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions of road transport and up to 70% of other pollutants from transport [3]. With increasing urbanization, problems such as congestion and pollution are becoming more and more evident, especially in larger cities. Hence, one of the key challenges in the transition towards more sustainable development of the energy system is the transport sector. Moreover, there are two trends, urbanization and electrification, which are deeply transforming energy systems globally [4]. However, most of the cities have car-centric infrastructures built in the 20th century, which occupy large territories and cause high rates of urban air pollution and congestion. Especially in urban areas, electric mobility is seen as an important means to cope with local environmental problems as well as to combat global warming.

The shift from private cars to public transport and the electrification of mobility are often seen as the right ways towards sustainable development of urban areas. However, it is important to notice that electric mobility in both private and public transport has a long history.

In particular, the capital of Austria has a long history of electric mobility. In Vienna, trams powered by electricity, at 600 V DC, have been used since 1897. Due to their lower noise and smell compared to horse-drawn and steam trams, they very quickly became the favorable option. Horse-driven trams were removed from use in 1903 and steam trams in

1922. In the first half of the 20th century, since private cars were too expensive for most of the population, trams were a major transport mode in Vienna. Still today, electric trams are an essential part of the public transport system in Vienna in spite of the broader portfolio of other mobility options. Over time, some parts of the tramlines were replaced with buses and metros, but the Viennese trams network comprises around 220 km, which makes it the sixth largest in the world [5].

Today, the metro is the backbone of the public transport system in Vienna. After the first test operations in 1976, the modern metro opened in 1978. Over time, the number of lines increased, as did the total length of the network. The current underground network extends to 83 km.

Besides the tram and metro network, there is also a bus line network in Vienna of about 850 km. Although most of the buses are still powered by fossil fuels, there are different initiatives for purchasing electric buses. Since 2013, fully electric eight-meter minibuses have been used in the city center. Currently, 12-m battery-electric buses are in the test stage and should be included in passenger service from 2023. Moreover, the first hydrogen bus is in test operation this year, 2020 [6–8].

The electrification and historical development of the public transport system in Vienna is depicted in Figure 1.

**Figure 1.** Development of electrification of the public transport system in Vienna.

Reorganizing urban mobility towards more sustainability is a common challenge to all major cities. Efficient and effective urban transport is crucial for the achievement of sustainability goals. However, the development of mobility is very dependent on policies implemented and policy objectives set for the future. Already in 2011, the Transport White Paper [9] sets the goal to reduce the use of conventional fossil-fueled cars in urban transport by 50% by 2030 and to phase them out completely by 2050. As a follow-up to this document, the European Commission came up in 2013 with an Urban Mobility Package with a special focus on urban road charging and access restriction schemes, monitoring and management of urban freight flows and financial support mechanisms for the preparation of Urban Mobility Plans.

However, the success of the European policies and goals, which are agreed upon at the EU level, depends also on actions taken and policies implemented by national, regional and local authorities. This is the reason that the development of urban mobility is quite different from city to city. Although the developments are different, the increasing use of alternative fuels and alternative automotive technologies can be noticed in most cities. Over the last decade, special interest in electrification of mobility has been rapidly increasing.

In the literature, different aspects of electrification of mobility have been discussed in recent years. Held and Geritts [10] conducted a qualitative comparative analysis of urban e-mobility policies in 15 European cities. Liberto et al. [11] analyzed the impact of electric mobility in Rome. Ajanovic and Haas [12] examined the major impact factors on the broader dissemination of electric vehicles in urban areas. Assessment of the electrification of urban mobility with the special focus on buses was conducted by Scarinci [13]. Since public transport is one of the backbones of sustainable transport strategy in the EU, further electrification of public transport is essential for the reduction in emissions in this sector. In the scope of the ELIPTIC project, 20 showcases with variations of electrified public transport under different operational, geographical and climate conditions are demonstrated and analyzed [14]. The development of e-mobility in urban areas is very different from city to city, and it is important to exchange lessons learned. However, in the literature, only a few contributions exist dealing with e-mobility in all its facets. Currently, there are many papers focusing on electric cars despite their minor relevance compared to public transport, e.g., underground and trams.

The major contribution of this paper is the comprehensive analysis of electric mobility in the city of Vienna from an economic and environmental point of view considering the individual as well as public mobility powered by electricity. An additional aim is to assess CO2 emissions taking into account various electricity generation portfolios as well as the hidden and embedded GHG emissions from production, assembling and scrappage of the electric vehicles. The paper documents the major historical developments, shows the current situation and analyzes possible future scenarios for the electrification of mobility considering existing targets and policy framework, as well as the effects of stronger use of renewable energy in electricity generation.

This paper starts with a brief history of electric mobility in Vienna. In the next section, the recent developments and current situation of mobility in Vienna are described. In Section 3 policy framework is documented. Section 4 describes the methods used for economic and environmental assessments. In the next sections, the results of our economic and environmental analysis are provided. The scenarios for future development are presented in Section 7, and major conclusions are derived at the end.

### **2. Background: Recent Developments and the Current Situation of Mobility in Vienna**

Vienna is a city with a continuously growing population and consequently an increasing demand for energy services, including mobility. The development of overall energy consumption in transport by fuel in Vienna is depicted in Figure 2. The increase in energy consumption between 1990 and 2018 was about 63%. The largest amount of this energy consumption was covered by fossil fuels. For example, in 2018, the total final energy consumption was about 14 TWh, with only a small amount, 644.3 GWh, covered by electrical energy. In total, the highest energy consumption was reached in 2005 with about 15 TWh.

Over time, different fuel mixes have been used in the transport sector. The fuel used most in 1990 was petrol and in 2018 diesel. For example, in 1990, the share of diesel fuel in the energy mix was 35%, but this had risen to 70% by 2018; see Figure 3. It is interesting to note that in spite of all supporting measures implemented with the goal of accelerating electrification of mobility, the share of electricity in the energy mix in the transport sector in 2018 was almost the same as in 2000 at about 5%.

Over the years, interest in different transport modes has also changed. Between the 1970s and the early 1990s, the use of public transport steadily decreased while the use of private passenger cars increased. However, due to the more evident environmental problems related to the transport sector, as well as reduced service prices and improved quality in services, the use of public transport in Vienna has increased remarkably in recent years; see Figure 4. Moreover, like in other cities, cycling is becoming a more and more

popular mobility option. Electric mobility increased in total from about 17% in 1970 to about 23% in 2019 with a historical low in 1993.

**Figure 2.** Development of overall energy consumption in transport by fuel (data source [15]).

**Figure 3.** Share of fuels used for mobility in Vienna, 1990 vs. 2018 (data source [15]).

**Figure 4.** Development of modal split in Vienna, 1970–2018 (data source [15,16]).

Currently, the most kilometers driven in Vienna are covered by public transport. In 2018 in total, 153 million vehicle kilometers (vkm) were traveled by public transport. The underground had the biggest share, with 70.7 million vkm; see Figure 5. In Vienna, most of the buses still operate on fossil fuels, but there is a significant effort to increase the use of electric buses, with electric minibuses used currently in the city center.

**Figure 5.** Share of vehicle kilometers of public transport, 2018 (data source [17]).

The development of electricity consumption in transport is depicted by mode in Figure 6. The results combine a top-down and a bottom-up approach. The electrical energy consumption of railway and underground is available in statistical data [15]. The electricity demand of city buses, trams and passenger cars is calculated using data for the vehicle's fuel intensity (FI) and vehicle kilometers driven (*dvkm*):

$$E\_i = FI\_i \cdot d\_{vk m\_i} \tag{1}$$

with *i* ∈ {city bus; tram; passenger cars}.

**Figure 6.** Electricity consumption in the transport sector by transport mode in the period of 1990–2018 (data source [17]).

Electricity consumption in tram transport was stable in the period of 1990–2018, whereas the electricity consumption of underground transport more than quadrupled in the same time.

The use of electricity for private passenger mobility is still very low, although a broad portfolio of policy measures is provided with the goal of accelerating the use of electric vehicles. Figure 7 shows the development of the passenger car stock from 1990 to 2019. Private passenger mobility is dominated by conventional internal combustion engine vehicles, powered by petrol and diesel.

**Figure 7.** Stock of passenger cars from 1990–2019 (data source [18]).

However, the total number of electric vehicles used for private and public mobility is rapidly increasing over time; see Figure 8. Since 2010, electric cars, motorcycles and trucks have shown significant growth in their stock numbers.

**Figure 8.** Development of the stock of private and public electric vehicles by mode from 1990–2017 (data source [17,18]).

In 2001, Wiener Linien, Vienna's public transport operator, fundamentally changed its counting method of underground trains. This explains the immediate growth of metro railcar stock between 2000 and 2001.

The number of underground railcars is significantly higher than the number of underground trailers. The standard U-type underground train has six railcar wagons (three twin railcars). The type T has mostly four railcars. Type V consists of six wagons, with the end-wagons as trailers without a propulsion system, meaning a type V metro train regularly consists of two trailers and four railcars.

### **3. Policy Framework**

With the oil crisis in the 1970s, it became apparent that traffic could not continue to grow only based on fossil fuels. At first, measures such as restrictions in car use, e.g., leaving the car at home one day a week were implemented. In addition, in the 1980s, the extension of local public transport was accelerated. Due to environmental problems, freight transport was transferred from road to rail. The Transport Master Plan [19] was published in 1991 with the goal to improve the attractiveness of public transport, to reduce road-traffic-related emissions (noise and air pollution) and to introduce the concept of true costs in the transport sector.

The Traffic Concept for Vienna was first published in 1969. Since then, new transport and mobility concepts have been adopted every ten years. Currently, the policy framework in Vienna is based on policies and targets set on the EU and Austrian national level. The most relevant documents on the EU level are the White Paper on Transport [9], and the guidelines for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans [20]. On the national level, the most important documents are the Energy Strategy Austria from 2010 and the Transport Master Plan from 2013. With the Smart City Vienna Framework Strategy (2014), Vienna has committed to the European energy and climate targets [21,22]. the documents such as the Urban Development Plan (STEP 2025) from 2014, Urban Mobility Plan Vienna (2015) and E-Mobility Strategy (2016), the goals for the future development of mobility in Vienna are also clearly set.

The essential strategies relevant for the implementation of e-Mobility are [22]:


There are different tax benefits and incentives provided for e-mobility. They can be divided into three categories: federal subsidies for private individuals, subsidies for companies and tax advantages.

Currently, individuals who purchase electric cars, e-mopeds, e-motorcycles and etransport bikes receive subsidies. Prerequisites are the use of electricity from renewable energies with a range of at least 50 km and a gross list price of a maximum of €50,000. Electric and fuel cell vehicles are subsidized with €1500, plug-in hybrid and range extender with €750, e-motorcycles with €500, e-mopeds with €350 and e-transport bikes with €200. The purchase of e-charging stations is also subsidized. In addition, there are federal-state subsidies (e.g., €1000 per e-car in Lower Austria) [23]. The same subsidies are also available for companies. However, the gross list price may not exceed €60,000.

Moreover, e-vehicles are exempt from the standard consumption tax (NoVA), the motor vehicle tax above 3.5 tons, and the motor-related insurance tax up to 3.5 tons. In addition, they are exempt from mineral oil tax (MÖSt), and only minor energy taxes (electricity) are payable [24]. If an e-vehicle (max. 80,000 purchase price) is used for business purposes, there is the possibility of an input tax deduction (purchase costs, leasing expenses, operating costs) [23].

Besides different tax benefits and incentives provided for e-mobility, there are also subsidiary programs provided with the goal to support implementation of various pilot and demonstrations projects, e.g., purchase of different types of electric vehicles (electric scooters, mopeds, motorcycles, electric bicycles), development of infrastructure, e-mobility management, e-fleets and e-logistics.

The City of Vienna supports expansion measures and enacts laws relevant to e-mobility. The Vienna Parking Garage Law stipulates the provisioning of empty cable ducts for future charging stations in new parking garages. Furthermore, it is recommended to provide charging infrastructure in semi-public areas such as parking slots and petrol stations. Strategic locations such as multimodal hubs are particularly suitable for the installation of charging infrastructure [22].

E-vehicles are increasingly used in the logistics sector. This reduces emissions as well as noise and increases the performance coefficient. With the framework strategy "Smart City Vienna", the City of Vienna has committed itself to cooperate with the logistics sector [25].

Energy suppliers should follow existing systems like the Vienna Energy "tank" system. They should offer tailor-made business models and integrated solutions for private and business customers from a single source that are economically viable, suitable for everyday use and user-friendly (regarding the existing electrical power supply infrastructure, the installation of charging stations and energy billing) [22].

One of the most important research projects in the field of e-Mobility is the E-Delivery on Demand' (Tranform+) project, a mobility lab that has been running since 2015. At the Liesing Industrial Park, it tests how delivery services, car rentals and carpools can be organized more efficiently. The aim is to generate a pooled, demand-oriented and costefficient model with the use of e-vehicles [22]. Another mobility lab is the aspern.mobil LAB, which deals with active mobility, mobility as a service as well as first- and lastmile logistics. The mobility lab thinkport VIENNA deals with freight logistics solely. The research program Mobility of the Future should also be mentioned here: it was started in 2012 and focuses on the sustainable and environmentally friendly development of alternative and innovative drive technologies and mobility solutions.

Furthermore, there is a big focus on raising the awareness of the general public regarding e-Mobility via campaigns. Advancements in e-mobility bring new jobs and thus a need for training and further education.

### **4. Method of Approach**

In this section, the method of approach for the economic and environmental analyses conducted in this paper is documented. This approach is based on the Total Cost of Ownership calculation method of the total mobility costs [26,27], well-to-wheel methodology [28,29], as well as on the assessment framework developed in our previous works [30–32].

For the economic assessment investment costs, energy costs and other operating and maintenance costs, as well as relevant taxes and incentives, are considered. The total costs per km driven *Ckm* are calculated as:

$$\mathbf{C}\_{km} = \frac{I\mathbf{C} \cdot \boldsymbol{\alpha}}{\text{skm}} + P\_f \cdot \boldsymbol{\varepsilon}\boldsymbol{I} + \frac{\mathbf{C}\_{O\&M}}{\text{skm}} \text{ [\![\text{\%}/100\text{ km divven}]\text{]}}\tag{2}$$

where:

*IC*: investment costs [€/car] *α*: A capital recovery factor *skm*: specific km driven per car per year [km/(car.yr)] *Pf*: energy price incl. taxes [€/kWh] *CO&M*: operating and maintenance costs *FI*: energy intensity [kWh/100 km].

The environmental assessment is divided into assessment of well-to-tank (WTT) and tank-to-wheel (TTW) emissions. In addition, emissions embedded in the car (TTWcar) are included in the analysis. WTT emissions in the fuel cycle are calculated using the following equation:

$$WTT\_{fuel} = f\_{PrCO\_2} \cdot E\_{pr} \tag{3}$$

where:

*fprCO2*: CO2 emission factor of primary energy

*Epr*: primary energy input.

TTW emissions in the fuel cycle are calculated using data for the energy intensity of vehicles and the specific CO2 emission factors of energy used, as well as depending on the specific number of kilometers driven per year:

$$TT\mathcal{W}\_{fuel} = FI \cdot skm \cdot f\_{CO\_2} \tag{4}$$

where:

*fCO2*: CO2 emission factor of fuels

*FI*: fuel intensity

*skm*: specific km driven per year and car.

The embedded emissions of the car are calculated per year and kilometers driven as:

$$TTW\_{\text{car}} = \frac{\text{CO}\_{2\_{\text{car}}}}{\text{skm} \cdot LT} \tag{5}$$

where:

*CO2car*: CO2 emissions of car manufacturing including materials *LT*: lifetime of car.

Finally, the total CO2-emissions are calculated as the sum of all emissions related to energy use including the embedded emissions of the car:

$$\text{CO2} = \text{WTT}\_{fuel} + \text{TT\%}\_{fuel} + \text{TT\%}\_{car} \tag{6}$$

### **5. Costs of Private and Public Mobility**

One of the major reasons for the low number of battery electric vehicles (BEV) is related to their higher mobility costs in comparison to conventional vehicles.

Figure 9 depicts the structure of total mobility costs per 100 km driven for conventional petrol and diesel cars in comparison to battery electric vehicles, assuming 16,000 km driven per year for all car types and 70% of the total travel activity in Vienna. It can be seen that the advantage of lower energy costs in the case of electric vehicles is currently more than compensated by higher capital costs; see Figure 9. They are currently not economically competitive with conventional cars. Moreover, considering the same travel activity, it is obvious that public transport is by far the cheapest mobility option in Vienna.

**Figure 9.** Total mobility costs of passenger cars and public transport per 100 km driven and year in 2018 (average car size: 80 kW).

The major assumptions for the calculation of the total mobility costs of passenger cars per 100 km driven in 2018 are given in Table 1. In the case of private cars, there is a significant price difference in mobility depending on the vehicle type and energy used. However, in the case of public transport, the situation is completely different. In Vienna, all public transport means have the same price. Nevertheless, the most expensive is to purchase single tickets, and cheapest to have an annual ticket for public transport. The annual ticket is valid on all means of public transport within Vienna for exactly 365 days. It costs on average 1 EUR per day. This is the reason that the number of such tickets is rapidly increasing. In 2018, 822,000 annual tickets were sold.

**Table 1.** Assumptions for calculating the total mobility costs of passenger cars and public transport in Vienna per 100 km driven and year in 2018.


It is of course clear that the number of km driven is not the same for all transport technologies and modes. Yet for the sake of comparison, the same number of km driven is assumed for all vehicles, and 70% of the total travel activity is in the city.

### **6. Environmental Assessment**

In the following, at first, the current CO2 emissions of battery-electric and conventional vehicles are compared, considering different primary energy sources; see Figure 10. Note that in overall CO2 emissions, the embedded CO2-emissions of car and battery production as well as of the materials used (*TTWcar*) are included. For BEV, two different cases are analyzed, one with electricity produced from renewable energy sources (RES), and one with the electricity generation mix in Vienna in 2018, which is largely dominated by natural gas-fired power plants. A major perception of this figure is that despite the fact that BEVs do not emit CO2 at the point of use (*TTWfuel*), their full environmental benefits are possible if the electricity used is generated from renewable energy sources and not in fossil power plants.

**Figure 10.** Overall CO2 emissions of conventional and BEVs with various energy sources, (Car size: 80 kW). Abbreviations: ICE, internal combustion engine; BEV, battery electric vehicle.

WTT emissions of BEVs are very dependent on the primary energy sources used for electricity generation. The historical development of the CO2-emission factor of electricity used in Vienna is shown in Figure 11. For electricity, the emission factor of primary energy fprCO2 is calculated for every year based on the stock of Viennese power plants and the electricity imports. It can be seen in Figure 11 that over time, a continuous decrease took place. However, in Vienna, this factor is still very high compared to the Austrian average (it was 264 kg CO2/MWh in 2018). The possible future developments of this factor up to 2030 are sketched at the end of Section 7.

Based on this emission factor, it is possible to compare the emissions of public transport, Austrian railways and passenger cars. Figure 12 shows a comparison of CO2 emissions of various transport modes in Vienna in 2018. For BEV, CO2 emission factor in Vienna is used, according to Figure 11. The figure of Austrian railways is from their own electricity generation portfolio, which almost solely consists of hydropower plants. The number for BEV Austria builds on 72% RES in the Austrian electricity mix. Public transport in Vienna builds on the same electricity generation mix as BEV in Vienna, yet with a higher occupation.

**Figure 11.** Development of CO2 emission factor of primary energy of electricity in Vienna, 2005–2018.

**Figure 12.** Comparison of CO2 emissions of various transport modes in Vienna in 2018 (own calculation based on statistical data [15]).

### **7. Scenarios for the Future of Electric Mobility in Vienna**

Since the development of public transport in Vienna is already planned up to 2030, there is limited freedom in the development of scenarios. The only segment where significant changes are possible is passenger car transport, where the shift to BEV could be intensified. In the following, two possible scenarios for the deployment of BEVs in passenger car transport are presented.

The first scenario is a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario created based on recent trends and developments. In the BAU scenario, it is assumed that the growing rate of BEVs, which was on average 63% over the last five years, will remain up to 2025 and then will be reduced to 40% by 2030.

The second scenario is an ambitious (AMB) scenario created assuming stronger promotion policies such as higher subsidies and other benefits for electric vehicle drivers. Here, the growing rate of BEVs is reduced from 63% in 2018 to only 50% in 2030. Of course, the decrease in conventional vehicles will be steeper in the AMB scenario including the target of an overall reduction in the total number of cars (−10%) by 2030.

The vehicle stock (VST) is modeled as:

$$VST\_{\dot{\jmath}i} = VST\_{\dot{\jmath}\_{t-1}} \cdot f\_{\mathcal{S}, \dot{\jmath}} \tag{7}$$

where:

*VSTjt*: stock of vehicle type *j* in year *t*

*fg\_jt*: growth factor of car type *j* in year *t*.

The magnitude of *fg\_jt* is 10% in the BAU scenario and 15% in the AMB scenario.

In addition, the total vehicle stock in 2030 must be lower than the maximum (*VSTMax*\_2030) allowed by current policy restrictions:

$$VST\_{\text{Tot\\_2030}} \le VST\_{\text{Max\\_2030}}\tag{8}$$

*VSTTot\_2030*: total car stock in the year 2030.

Figure 13 depicts the development of the car stock in the BAU and AMB scenario. In both scenarios, an increase of BEVs and a decrease in the number of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, as well as in total vehicle stock, can be seen. The curves on the bottom represent the scenarios for BEVs. In the AMB scenario, the number of BEVs could be about 110,000 in 2030. Due to policies and measures already implemented, the number of overall car is decreases even in the BAU scenario. The curve on the top shows the development of overall car stock in the BAU scenario.

**Figure 13.** Development of number of conventional and electric cars in the business-as-usual (BAU) and the ambitious (AMB) scenarios.

The major results of the scenarios with respect to energy demand are shown in Figures 14 and 15. Most important is that in the AMB scenario, through the introduction of BEV, the total energy demand in road transport can be reduced by about 60% in 2030 compared to 2018. In the BAU scenario, energy demand also decreases but just by 35%, mainly because of the mandatory reduction of the overall vehicle stock. As Figure 14 shows, already in the BAU scenario, overall energy demand in passenger car transport can be reduced by 50% given an overall reduction of the car stock.

**Figure 15.** Development of overall energy demand in passenger car transport in the AMB scenario.

Although the number of BEVs in the AMB-scenario is higher than in the BAU scenario, the corresponding increase in energy demand is small, since BEVs have a high efficiency and hence can be seen as an energy conservation technology.

The major finding is that until 2030, the total energy demand was reduced from 3.1 TWh in the BAU-scenario to 2.5 TWh in the AMB-scenario.

The development of specific CO2-emission factors of the electricity mix is depicted in Figure 16. The figure shows two possible scenarios: a BAU electricity mix scenario and a progressive RES scenario. The mix scenario considers that the district heating share requires more combined heat and power production, which is in principle favorable to the current mix but worse than electricity generation from RES. The RES scenario assumes that 100% RES electricity generation is reached in Austria by 2030.

**Figure 16.** Development of specific CO2-emission factors of electricity in a BAU electricity mix scenario and in a progressive electricity RES scenario.

The total CO2-emissions (*CO2Tot*) in these scenarios are calculated as:

$$CO\_{2Tot\_l} = \sum\_{j=1}^{n} f\_{CO\_{2j\_l}} \cdot E\_{j\_l} \text{ (Mill tons CO}\_2\text{)}\tag{9}$$

with

*Ejt*: Energy consumption of energy carrier *j* in year *t* (MWh) *fCO2\_j\_t*: Overall CO2 emission factor of fuel *j*.

Figure 17 shows the development of overall CO2-emissions in passenger car transport in the BAU and the AMB scenario for BEV development and for electricity in an electricity mix and a progressive electricity RES scenario. Four possible paths are considered. It can be noticed that the electricity mix used in BEVs has a considerable impact on total emissions and that use of electricity from RES in the AMB scenario can significantly reduce emissions from passenger car transport.

**Figure 17.** Development of overall CO2-emissions in passenger car transport in the BAU and the AMB scenarios for BEV development and for electricity in an electricity mix and a progressive electricity RES scenario.

### **8. Conclusions**

The major conclusion is that the policy of the city will have the largest impact on the future development of e-mobility in Vienna. This concerns public transport as well as private BEVs. With respect to the promotion of BEVs, two major options are subsidies and emission-free zones. In addition, announced bans of internal combustion vehicles, especially diesel vehicles, could also become a strong incentive to purchase BEVs.

However, the following important questions with respect to the development of electricity generation and electricity demand remain open. First, regarding the environmental performance, by far the most important is how the electricity generation mix for the electricity used for e-mobility will develop. Second, specifically for the city of Vienna, it is important how the demand for district heating will develop. A higher district heating share requires more combined heat and power production, which is in principle favorable to the current electricity mix but worse than electricity generation from RES. Finally, it is also important how the overall electricity demand will develop. The lower it is in general, the easier it will be to have a larger share of renewable electricity.

Another important issue is the development of the corresponding infrastructure. The deployment of the proper infrastructure such as overhead lines or other grids for electricity, installation of rapid and regular charging stations is of utmost importance. The development of infrastructure is in principle always dependent on regulation, which means it highly depends on the corresponding policies.

Furthermore, the national policies of Austria will play an important role. A current official overall target of Austrian energy policy is to reach 100% RES electricity generation by 2030 in a balanced system. If this could be achieved, of course, it would be a huge jump forwards towards a sustainable energy system. Consequently, electricity used in transport would become much more environmentally benign, and the corresponding CO2-emissions could be reduced significantly.

However, there are also other options for emission-free energy carriers in transport such as hydrogen or green gases. Today, for short distances and smaller cars, hydrogen is not an economically viable solution. However, for larger buses, it could at least be a possible option.

An outlook for the future emphasizes the core role of generating electricity from RES. This is the core crucial issue for environmentally benign electric mobility regardless of which mode is chosen. In addition, there is the question of whether the city will introduce a more ambitious strategy with respect to the reduction of private cars in general and ambitious towards more environmentally benign mobility modes. In any case, from the individual and societal points of view, economics will play a crucial and predominant role.

In summary, concrete steps recommended for future policies are to (i) introduce and extend emission-free zones in urban areas; (ii) force electricity generation from RES; (iii) ensure that mobility costs of all transport modes reflect full life cycle emissions are as correct as possible. Finally, it can be stated that these findings are generalizable virtually worldwide.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.A. and R.H.; methodology, A.A. and R.H.; formal analysis, A.A.; investigation, A.A. and M.S.; resources, A.A. and M.S.; data curation, A.A. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, A.A.; writing—review and editing, A.A., R.H. and M.S.; visualization, A.A.; supervision, A.A.; project administration, A.A.; funding acquisition, A.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The present work was funded by the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF) through the TransLoC project ESR17-067.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** MDPI Research Data Policies.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors are grateful for the data collected and inputs provided by A. Glatt.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

### **References**

