Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Feedbacks among electric vehicle adoption, charging, and the cost and installation of rooftop solar photovoltaics


Identifying feedback loops in consumer behaviours is important to develop policies to accentuate desired behaviour. Here, we use Granger causality to provide empirical evidence for feedback loops among four important components of a low-carbon economy. One loop includes the cost of installing rooftop solar (Cost) and the installation of rooftop solar (photovoltaics, PV); this loop is probably generated by learning by doing and reductions in the levelized cost of electricity. The second includes the purchase of electric vehicles (EV) and the installation of rooftop solar that is probably created by environmental complementarity. Finally, we address whether installing charging stations enhances the purchase of electric vehicles and vice versa; there is no evidence for a causal relation in either direction. Together, these results indicate ways to modify existing policy in ways that could trigger the Cost↔PV↔EV feedback loops and accelerate the transition to carbon-free technologies.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Causal relations among the four variables.
Fig. 2: Reliability of test statistics by zip code.

Data availability

Monthly observations for the purchase of electric vehicles are obtained from the MOR-EV programme. The location and number of public charging stations are obtained from the Alternative Fuels Data Center Station Locator electric vehicle supply equipment database54. Monthly installations of residential solar photovoltaic, which we term rooftop solar, and the cost of installation are obtained from the Massachusetts Renewable Portfolio Standards Solar Carve-Out II Renewable Generation dataset55. These data and the computer code can be obtained are available on OpenBU, which is FAIR compliant and can be accessed through a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier, This dataset is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence (

Code availability

The code is available on OpenBU, which is FAIR compliant, and can be accessed through a globally unique and eternally persistent identifier,


  1. 1.

    IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. In Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Samadi, S. The experience curve theory and its application in the field of electricity generation technologies—a literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 82, 2346–2364 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources AEO201925 (US Energy Information Administration, 2019).

  4. 4.

    Coffman, M., Bernstein, P. & Wee, S. Integrating electric vehicles and residential solar PV. Transp. Policy 53, 30–38 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J. & Bodin, J. Advances in consumer electric vehicle adoption research: a review and research agenda. Transp. Res. D.: Transp. Environ. 34, 122–136 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Carley, S., Krause, R. M., Lane, B. W. & Graham, J. D. Intent to purchase a plug-in electric vehicle: a survey of early impressions in large US cities. Transp. Res. D.: Transp. Environ. 18, 39–45 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Graham-Rowe, E. et al. Mainstream consumers driving plug-in battery-electric and plug-in hybrid electric cars: a qualitative analysis of responses and evaluations. Transp. Res. A.: Policy Pr. 46, 140–153 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Lebeau, K., Van Mierlo, J., Lebeau, P., Mairesse, O. & Macharis, C. The market potential for plugin hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Transp. Res. D.: Transp. Environ. 17, 592–597 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gallagher, K. S. & Muehlegger, E. Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 61, 1–15 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Krupa, J. S. et al. Analysis of a consumer survey on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp. Res. A.: Policy Pr. 64, 14–31 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K. & Wee, B. The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 68, 183–194 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Zhang, Y., Yu, Y. & Zou, B. Analyzing public awareness and acceptance of alternative fuel vehicles in China: the case of EV. Energy Policy 39, 7015–7024 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    DeShazo, J. R. Improving incentives for clean vehicle purchases in the United States: challenges and opportunities. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 10, 149–165 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Chandra, A., Gulati, S. & Kandlikar, M. Green drivers or free riders? An analysis of tax rebates for hybrid vehicles. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 60, 78–93 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Arraujo, K., Boucher, J. L. & Aphale, D. A clean energy assessment of early adopters I electric vehicles and solar photovoltaic technology: geospatial, political, and socio-demographic trends in New York. J. Clean. Prod. 216, 99–116 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zhang, Q. et al. Factors influencing the economics of public charging infrastructure for EV—a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 500–509 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Neaimeh, M. et al. Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery electric vehicles. Energy Policy 108, 474–486 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Axsen, J., TyreeHageman, J. & Lentz, A. Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental technology. Ecol. Econ. 82, 64–74 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Franke, T. & Krems, J. F. Interacting with limited mobility resources: psychological range levels in electric vehicle use. Transp. Res. A.: Policy Pr. 48, 109–122 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Way, R., Lafond, F., Lillo, F., Panchenko, V. & Farmer, J. D. Wright meets Markowitz: how standard portfolio theory changes when assets are technologies following experience curves. J. Economic Dyn. Control 101, 211–238 (2019).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Kim, K., Heo, E. & Kim, Y. Dynamic policy impacts on a technical-change system of renewable energy: an empirical analysis. Environ. Resour. Econ. 66, 205–236 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Farmer, J. D. et al. Sensitive intervention points in the post-carbon transition. Science 364, 132–134 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Kaufmann, R. K. & Stern, D. I. Evidence for human influence on climate from hemispheric temperature relations. Nature 38, 39–44 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Gillingham, K., Newell, R. G. & Pizer, W. A. Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis. Energy Econ. 30, 2734–2753 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Arrow, K. The economic implications of learning by doing. Rev. Econ. Stud. 29, 155–173 (1962).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Elshurafa, A. M., Albardi, S. R., Bigerna, S. & Bollino, C. A. Estimating the learning curve of solar PV balance-of-system for over 20 countries: implications and policy recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. 196, 122–134 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Garzón Sampedro, M. R. & Sanchez Gonzalez, C. Spanish photovoltaic learning curve. Int J. Low.-Carbon Technol. 11, 177–183 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Shum, K. L. & Watanabe, C. Towards a local learning (innovation) model of solar photovoltaic deployment. Energy Policy 36, 508–521 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wiser, R. et al. Analyzing historical cost trends in California’s market for customer-sited photovoltaic. Prog. Photovolt.: Res. Appl. 15, 69–85 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Fu, R. Feldman, D. & Margolis, R. U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2018 NREL/TP-6A20-72399 (NREL, 2018);

  31. 31.

    McGrath, M. Product Strategy for High Technology Companies 2nd edn (McGraw-Hill, 2001).

  32. 32.

    Neij, K., Heiskanen, E. & Strupeit, L. The deployment of new energy technologies and the need for local learning. Energy Policy 101, 274–263 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Robinson, J., Brase, G., Griswald, W., Jackson, C. & Erikson, L. Business models for solar powered charging stations to develop infrastructure for electric vehicles. Sustainability 6, 7358–7387 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Costs Associated with Non-Residential Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment, Factors to Consider in the Implementation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (US Department of Energy, 2015).

  35. 35.

    Hoarau, Q. & Perez, Y. Interactions between electric mobility and photovoltaic generation: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 94, 510–522 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Lemenager, T., King, D., Elliot, J., Gibbon, H. & King, A. Greater than the sum of their parts: exploring the environmental complexity of state, private, and community protected areas. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2, 238–247 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Nienhueser, I. A. & Qui, Y. Economic and environmental impacts of providing renewable energy for electric vehicle charging—a choice experiment study. Appl. Energy 180, 256–268 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Eppstein, M. J., Grover, D. K., Marshall, J. S. & Rizzo, D. M. An agent-based model to study market penetration of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Energy Policy 39, 3789–3802 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Wolske, K. S., Gillingham, K. T. & Schultz, P. W. Peer influence on household energy behaviors. Nat. Energy 5, 202–212 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Barth, M., Jugert, P. & Fritsche, I. Still underdetected—social norms and collective efficacy predict the acceptance of electric vehicles in Germany. Transp. Res. F. 37, 64–77 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Cialdini, R. and Trost, M. R. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds Gilbert, D. T. et al.) (Oxford Univ. Press, 1998).

  42. 42.

    van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T. & Spears, R. Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: a quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bull. 134, 504–535 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Bollinger, B. & Gillingham, K. Peer effects in the diffusion of solar photovoltaic panels. Mark. Sci. 31, 900–912 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Mau, P., Eyzaguirre, J., Jaccard, M., Collins-Dodd, C. & Tiedemann, K. The ‘neighbor effect’: simulating dynamics in consumer preferences for new vehicle technologies. Ecol. Econ. 68, 504–516 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Zhu, X. & Liu, C. Investigating the neighborhood effect on hybrid vehicle adoption. Transp. Res. Rec. 2385, 37–44 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Jansson, J., Pettersson, T., Mannberg, A., Brannlund, R. & Lindgren, U. Adoption of alternative fuel vehicles: influence from neighbors, family, and coworkers. Transp. Res. D.: Transp. Environ. 54, 61–75 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Rai, V. & Robinson, S. A. Effective information channels for reducing costs of environmentally-friendly technologies: evidence from residential PV markets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 014044 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Li, S., Tong, L., Xing, J. & Zhou, Y. The market for electric vehicles: indirect network effects and policy design. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, 89–133 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Morrissey, P., Weldon, P. & O’Mahony, M. Future standard and fast charging infrastructure planning: an analysis of electric vehicle charging behaviour. Energy Policy 89, 257–270 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bose, J. et al. NHTS 2001 Highlights Report. Bureau of Transportation Statistics Report BTS03-05 (US Department of Transportation, 2003).

  51. 51.

    Gurskiy, D. Apartment EV charging & ownership may be easier than you think. Clean Technica (2019).

  52. 52.

    Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy. Pump up the charge with extreme fast charging. Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (2017).

  53. 53.

    Zhou, Y. & Li, S. Technology adoption and critical mass: the case of the US electric vehicle market. J. Ind. Econ. 66, 423–480 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Federal EV tax credit phase out tracker by automaker. EV Adoption (2020).

  55. 55.

    Wiser, R. Bollinger, M. Cappers, P. & Margolis, R. An Empirical Investigation of Photovoltaic Cost Trends in California LBNL-59282 (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2006).

  56. 56.

    SREC. Solar Renewable Energy Certificates (2020).

  57. 57.

    Massachusetts offers rebates for electric vehicles, rebate statistics. Center for Sustainable Energy, Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources (2020).

  58. 58.

    . Electric vehicle charging locations US Department of Energy (2020).

  59. 59.

    List of qualified generating units. Commonwealth of Massachusetts

  60. 60.

    Hadri, K. Testing for stationarity in heterogeneous panel data. Econ. J. 3, 148–161 (2000).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Breitung, J. in Advances in Econometrics Vol. 15 (ed. Baltagi, B. H.) 161–178 (JAY Press, 2000).

  62. 62.

    Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H. & Shin, Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. J. Econ. 115, 53–74 (2003).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Levin, A., Lin, C. F. & Chu, C. S. J. Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. J. Econ. 108, 1–24 (2002).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Dumitrescu, E. & Hurlin, C. Testing for Granger non-causality in heterogeneous panels. Econ. Model. 29, 1450–1460 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In Proc. 2nd International Symposium on Information Theory (eds Petrov, P. N. & Csaki, F.) 267–281 (Akademiai Kiado, 1973).

  66. 66.

    Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W. & Rosen, H. S. Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 56, 1371–1396 (1988).

    MATH  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the members of Project Link for comments on a preliminary version of this manuscript. We also thank F. Khan, K. Florini, Q. Hoarau, J. Jannsson and G. Wagner for comments on preliminary versions of this manuscript. Any mistakes that remain are solely our responsibility.

Author information




This project was conceived by R.K.K. and D.N. and modified by C.X. and S.G. D.N. compiled the data used in the original analysis. C.X. updated the data that were used in the analysis reported in the main text. R.K.K. took the lead in estimating the statistical models in Rats. D.N. wrote the first version of the manuscript, which was modified by R.K.K. with significant input from D.N., C.X. and S.G. R.K.K. took the lead in designing the figures and Fig. 2 was generated by C.X.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert. K. Kaufmann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Chien-fei Chen, Gregory Nemet and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information and Tables 1–6.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaufmann, R.K., Newberry, D., Xin, C. et al. Feedbacks among electric vehicle adoption, charging, and the cost and installation of rooftop solar photovoltaics. Nat Energy 6, 143–149 (2021).

Download citation


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing