Impact of CARB\u27s Tailpipe Emission Standard Policy on CO2 Reduction among the US States

U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set the nationwide emission standard policy, but each state in the U.S. has an option to follow the higher emission standard policy set by CARB (California Air Resources Board) in 2004. There are 14 “CARB states” that follow California’s more restrictive standards. The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of CARB’s tailpipe emission standard policy. Using the panel dataset for 49 U.S. states over a 28-year study period (1987–2015), this paper found the long-term policy effect in reducing CO2 emission from CARB’s tailpipe standard, and its long-run effect is 5.4 times higher than the short-run effect. The equivalent policy effect of the CARB emission standard in CO2 reduction can be achieved by raising gasoline price by 145.43%. Also, if 26.0% of petroleum consumed for transportation is substituted by alternative clean fuels (natural gas or electricity), it will have a comparable policy effect in CO2 reduction. Findings in this study support to continue the collaborative efforts among the EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and California in order to achieve the CO2 reduction goal set by CARB and adopted by the EPA in 2012. The packaged policy approach rooted in persistent public and political support is necessary for successful policy implementation

Transportation Futures: Policy Scenarios for Achieving Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets, MNTRC Report 12-11

It is well established that GHG emissions must be reduced by 50% to 80% by 2050 in order to limit global temperature increase to 2°C. Achieving reductions of this magnitude in the transportation sector is a challenge and requires a multitude of policies and technology options. The research presented here analyzes three scenarios: changes in the perceived price of travel, land-use intensification, and increases in transit. Elasticity estimates are derived using an activity-based travel model for the state of California and broadly representative of the U.S. The VISION model is used to forecast changes in technology and fuel options that are currently forecast to occur in the U.S., providing a life cycle GHG forecast for the road transportation sector. Results suggest that aggressive policy action is needed, especially pricing policies, but also more on the technology side. Medium- and heavy-duty vehicles are in particular need of additional fuel or technology-based GHG reductions

Prospects for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles in the United States and Japan: A General Equilibrium Analysis

Abstract and PDF report are also available on the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change website (http://globalchange.mit.edu/)The plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) may offer a potential near term, low carbon alternative to today's gasoline- and diesel-powered vehicles. A representative vehicle technology that runs on electricity in addition to conventional fuels was introduced into the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model as a perfect substitute for internal combustion engine (ICE-only) vehicles in two likely early-adopting markets, the United States and Japan. We investigate the effect of relative vehicle cost and all-electric range on the timing of PHEV market entry in the presence and absence of an advanced cellulosic biofuels technology and a strong (450ppm) economy-wide carbon constraint. Vehicle cost could be a significant barrier to PHEV entry unless fairly aggressive goals for reducing battery costs are met. If a low cost vehicle is available we find that the PHEV has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions, refined oil demand, and under a carbon policy the required CO2 price in both the United States and Japan. The emissions reduction potential of PHEV adoption depends on the carbon intensity of electric power generation and the size of the vehicle fleet. Thus, the technology is much more effective in reducing CO2 emissions if adoption occurs under an economy-wide cap and trade system that also encourages low-carbon electricity generation.BP Conversion Research Project and the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change through a consortium of industrial sponsors and Federal grants

Sustainability, transport and design: reviewing the prospects for safely encouraging eco-driving

Private vehicle use contributes a disproportionately large amount to the degradation of the environment we inhabit. Technological advancement is of course critical to the mitigation of climate change, however alone it will not suffice; we must also see behavioural change. This paper will argue for the application of Ergonomics to the design of private vehicles, particularly low-carbon vehicles (e.g. hybrid and electric), to encourage this behavioural change. A brief review of literature is offered concerning the effect of the design of a technological object on behaviour, the inter-related nature of goals and feedback in guiding performance, the effect on fuel economy of different driving styles, and the various challenges brought by hybrid and electric vehicles, including range anxiety, workload and distraction, complexity, and novelty. This is followed by a discussion on the potential applicability of a particular design framework, namely Ecological Interface Design, to the design of in-vehicle interfaces that encourage energy-conserving driving behaviours whilst minimising distraction and workload, thus ensuring safety

Carbon Free Boston: Transportation Technical Report

Part of a series of reports that includes: Carbon Free Boston: Summary Report; Carbon Free Boston: Social Equity Report; Carbon Free Boston: Technical Summary; Carbon Free Boston: Buildings Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Waste Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Energy Technical Report; Carbon Free Boston: Offsets Technical ReportOVERVIEW: Transportation connects Boston’s workers, residents and tourists to their livelihoods, health care, education, recreation, culture, and other aspects of life quality. In cities, transit access is a critical factor determining upward mobility. Yet many urban transportation systems, including Boston’s, underserve some populations along one or more of those dimensions. Boston has the opportunity and means to expand mobility access to all residents, and at the same time reduce GHG emissions from transportation. This requires the transformation of the automobile-centric system that is fueled predominantly by gasoline and diesel fuel. The near elimination of fossil fuels—combined with more transit, walking, and biking—will curtail air pollution and crashes, and dramatically reduce the public health impact of transportation. The City embarks on this transition from a position of strength. Boston is consistently ranked as one of the most walkable and bikeable cities in the nation, and one in three commuters already take public transportation. There are three general strategies to reaching a carbon-neutral transportation system: • Shift trips out of automobiles to transit, biking, and walking;1 • Reduce automobile trips via land use planning that encourages denser development and affordable housing in transit-rich neighborhoods; • Shift most automobiles, trucks, buses, and trains to zero-GHG electricity. Even with Boston’s strong transit foundation, a carbon-neutral transportation system requires a wholesale change in Boston’s transportation culture. Success depends on the intelligent adoption of new technologies, influencing behavior with strong, equitable, and clearly articulated planning and investment, and effective collaboration with state and regional partners.Published versio

Technology assessment of future intercity passenger transporation systems. Volume 1: Summary report

Technical, economic, environmental, and sociopolitical issues associated with future intercity transportation system options were assured. Technology assessment was used as a tool to assist in the identification of basic research and technology development tasks that should be undertaken. The emphasis was on domestic passenger transportation, but interfaces with freight and international transportation were considered

Household Income and Vehicle Fuel Economy in California

This white paper presents the findings from an analysis of the fiscal implications for vehicle owners of changing from the current statewide fuel tax to a “road user charge” (RUC) based on vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Since 1923, California’s motor vehicle fuel tax has provided revenue used to plan, construct, and maintain the state’s publicly funded transportation systems. Over time, improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency and the effects of inflation have reduced both the revenue from the fuel tax and its purchasing power. Thus, there is growing interest among policy makers for replacing the state’s per-gallon fuel tax with an RUC based on VMT. This study analyzes the 2010-2011California Household Travel Survey (CHTS) to identify the potential effects this policy change would be likely to have on households across the state. The analysis found that while daily household fuel consumption and VMT both appear to increase with household income, urban and rural households show roughly the same amount of fuel consumption and VMT. No statistically significant difference in cost was found between the two programs in any income group. This suggests that an RUC designed to collect the same amount of revenues statewide as the current fuel tax would not place a significant financial burden on California households

Moving Cooler: An Analysis of Transportation Strategies for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Summarizes estimates of the costs and impact on greenhouse gas emissions of transportation strategies that raise fuel efficiency, lower fuel carbon content, reduce vehicle travel, and improve the transportation network and of combinations of strategies

Do Regulations Requiring Light Trucks To Be More Fuel Efficient Make Economic Sense? An Evaluation of NHTSA's Proposed Standards

The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently proposed increasing the fuel economy of new light trucks by 1.5 miles per gallon for vehicles produced in model year 2007. NHTSA's analysis of its proposal implausibly concludes that the benefits to consumers are more than twice the costs to manufacturers, ignoring effects on the environment or dependence on foreign oil. NHTSA's proposal has several serious flaws. It wrongly presumes that manufacturers cannot produce items that consumers are willing to buy, even though they could make money by doing so. Its analysis uses overly optimistic measures of net benefits. In addition, NHTSA neglects the adverse effects from the increased driving induced by the proposal. By lowering the cost of driving, NHTSA's proposal increases vehicle miles traveled, thereby boosting traffic accidents and congestion. The increase in the costs of accidents and congestion fully offsets and probably outweighs the social benefits resulting from greater fuel economy. If NHTSA is interested in a cost-effective way of reducing gasoline use, it should consider giving consumers better information about fuel economy of new vehicles, or suggest a modest gasoline tax. A penny per gallon levy would conserve more fuel in 2007 than NHTSA's proposal, while lowering, rather than increasing, traffic congestion and accidents.