The Experts below are selected from a list of 213 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Winston Harrington - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
improving Fuel Economy in heavy duty vehicles
2012Co-Authors: Winston Harrington, Alan KrupnickAbstract:In September 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated the first-ever federal regulations mandating Fuel Economy improvements for heavy-duty commercial vehicles. While the performance-based approach to these rules offers familiarity and assurances of Fuel Economy improvements, it also has some well-known weaknesses. In this paper, we describe Fuel Economy technologies for the trucking sector, its economic structure, the details of the new Fuel Economy regulations, and the controversies they sparked. We then address issues raised in reviewing the accompanying regulatory impact analysis. Next, we highlight some flaws of this form of regulation and suggests a variety of alternative, more market-oriented approaches that might work better.
-
Improving Fuel Economy inHeavy-Duty Vehicles
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Winston Harrington, Alan KrupnickAbstract:In September 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly promulgated the first-ever federal regulations mandating improvements in Fuel Economy among heavy-duty commercial vehicles (HDVs). Although much more complex than the corporate average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles, the rules employ many of the same concepts and regulatory strategies. While regulatory familiarity can be advantageous for almost all interested parties, the approach also has weaknesses. In this issue brief, the authors describe Fuel Economy technologies for the trucking sector, its economic structure, the details of the new Fuel Economy regulations for heavy-duty trucks, and the controversies they sparked. They also cite problems with the underlying cost–benefit analysis of the regulation and highlight some flaws of this form of regulation. The authors conclude by suggesting a variety of alternative, more market-oriented approaches that might work better.
-
Fuel Economy and Motor Vehicle Emissions
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 1997Co-Authors: Winston HarringtonAbstract:Abstract The conventional wisdom is that there is no relationship between Fuel Economy and motor vehicle emissions, at least for new cars. The requirement that all vehicles meet a common emission standard in terms of grams per mile effectively breaks whatever link there might have been between Fuel Economy and emissions in uncontrolled (preregulatory) vehicles. As cars age, however, the emission control equipment tends to break down, providing reason to think that the conventional wisdom might do the same. This paper reports on an empirical examination of this proposition, by linking EPA Fuel Economy certification data to a large database of motor vehicle emission measurements collected by remote sensing. It is found that better Fuel Economy is strongly associated with lower emissions of CO and HC and that the effect gets stronger as vehicles age.
David L. Greene - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Predicting Individual Fuel Economy
SAE International Journal of Fuels and Lubricants, 2011Co-Authors: Zhenhong Lin, David L. GreeneAbstract:To make informed decisions about travel and vehicle purchase, consumers need unbiased and accurate information of the Fuel Economy they will actually obtain. In the past, the EPA Fuel Economy estimates based on its 1984 rules have been widely criticized for overestimating on-road Fuel Economy. In 2008, EPA adopted a new estimation rule. This study compares the usefulness of the EPA's 1984 and 2008 estimates based on their prediction bias and accuracy and attempts to improve the prediction of on-road Fuel economies based on consumer and vehicle attributes. We examine the usefulness of the EPA Fuel Economy estimates using a large sample of self-reported on-road Fuel Economy data and develop an Individualized Model for more accurately predicting an individual driver's on-road Fuel Economy based on easily determined vehicle and driver attributes. Accuracy rather than bias appears to have limited the usefulness of the EPA 1984 estimates in predicting on-road MPG. The EPA 2008 estimates appear to be equally inaccurate and substantially more biased relative to the self-reported data. Furthermore, the 2008 estimates exhibit an underestimation bias that increases with increasing Fuel Economy, suggesting that the new numbers will tend to underestimate the real-world benefits of Fuel Economy and emissions standards.more » By including several simple driver and vehicle attributes, the Individualized Model reduces the unexplained variance by over 55% and the standard error by 33% based on an independent test sample. The additional explanatory variables can be easily provided by the individuals.« less
-
Fuel Economy: The Case for Market Failure
Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation Sector, 2008Co-Authors: David L. Greene, John German, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This chapter argues that uncertainty combined with loss aversion by consumers is sufficient to explain the failure to adopt cost effective energy efficiency improvements in the market for automotive Fuel Economy, although other market failures appear to be present as well. Consumers are known to be loss averse as a general rule. Furthermore, consumers’ preferences for future Fuel savings versus present wealth are certain to be “fuzzy” as required by the theory of loss aversion. The net present value of an investment of an investment in Fuel Economy is indeed uncertain, and the uncertainty is enhanced by the fact that net value is the difference of two uncertain quantities. The chapter describes how there is evidence that other types of market failures are also present in the market for Fuel Economy. Nonetheless, it appears that uncertainty plus loss aversion alone are sufficient to induce a significant underinvestment in energy efficiency. Other market failures, such as imperfect information and bounded rationality, almost certainly contribute to or exacerbate the uncertainty/loss aversion market deficiency. External costs, especially carbon dioxide emissions and oil dependence, are critically important market failures because they constitute society’s motivation for seeking solutions to the Fuel Economy market failure.
-
Analysis of In-Use Fuel Economy Shortfall by Means of Voluntarily Reported Fuel Economy Estimates
Transportation Research Record, 2006Co-Authors: David L. Greene, Rick Goeltz, Janet L. Hopson, Elzbieta TworekAbstract:The usefulness of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) passenger car and light truck Fuel Economy estimates has been the subject of debate for the past three decades. For the labels on new vehicles and the Fuel Economy information given to the public, the EPA adjusts dynamometer test results downward by 10% for the city cycle and 22% for the highway cycle to better reflect real world driving conditions. These adjustment factors were developed in 1984 and their continued validity has repeatedly been questioned. In March 2005, the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA's Fuel Economy information website, www.FuelEconomy.gov, began allowing users to voluntarily share Fuel Economy estimates. This paper presents an initial statistical analysis of more than 3, 000 estimates submitted by website users. The analysis suggests two potentially important results: (a) adjusted, combined EPA Fuel Economy estimates appear to be approximately unbiased estimators of the average Fuel Economy consumers will experienc...
-
effect of Fuel Economy on automobile safety a reexamination
Transportation Research Record, 2005Co-Authors: Sanjana Ahmad, David L. GreeneAbstract:Since 1975, the Fuel Economy of passenger cars and light trucks has been regulated by the corporate average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, established during the energy crises of the 1970s. Calls to increase Fuel Economy are usually met by a fierce debate on the effectiveness of the CAFE standards and their impact on highway safety. A seminal study of the link between CAFE and traffic fatalities was published by R. W. Crandall and J. D. Graham in 1989. They linked higher Fuel Economy levels to decreases in vehicle weight and correlated the decline in new car weight with about a 20% increase in occupant fatalities. The time series available to them, 1947-1981, includes only the first 4 years of Fuel Economy regulation, but any statistical relationship estimated over such a short period is questionable. This paper reexamines the relationship between U.S. light-duty vehicle Fuel Economy and highway fatalities from 1966 to 2002. Cointegration analysis reveals that the stationary linear relationships between the average Fuel Economy of passenger cars and light trucks and highway fatalities are negative: higher miles per gallon is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities. Log-log models are not stable and tend to produce statistically insignificant (negative) relationships between Fuel Economy and traffic fatalities. These results do not definitively establish a negative relationship between light-duty vehicle Fuel Economy and highway fatalities; instead they demonstrate that national aggregate statistics cannot support the assertion that increased Fuel Economy has led to increased traffic fatalities.
-
Effect of Fuel Economy on Automobile Safety
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005Co-Authors: Sanjana Ahmad, David L. GreeneAbstract:Since 1975, the Fuel Economy of passenger cars and light trucks has been regulated by the corporate average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, established during the energy crises of the 1970s. Calls to increase Fuel Economy are usually met by a fierce debate on the effectiveness of the CAFE standards and their impact on highway safety. A seminal study of the link between CAFE and traffic fatalities was published by R. W. Crandall and J. D. Graham in 1989. They linked higher Fuel Economy levels to decreases in vehicle weight and correlated the decline in new car weight with about a 20% increase in occupant fatalities. The time series available to them, 1947–1981, includes only the first 4 years of Fuel Economy regulation, but any statistical relationship estimated over such a short period is questionable. This paper reexamines the relationship between U.S. light-duty vehicle Fuel Economy and highway fatalities from 1966 to 2002. Cointegration analysis reveals that the stationary linear relationships between the average Fuel Economy of passenger cars and light trucks and highway fatalities are negative: higher miles per gallon is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities. Log–log models are not stable and tend to produce statistically insignificant (negative) relationships between Fuel Economy and traffic fatalities. These results do not definitively establish a negative relationship between light-duty vehicle Fuel Economy and highway fatalities; instead they demonstrate that national aggregate statistics cannot support the assertion that increased Fuel Economy has led to increased traffic fatalities.
Carolyn Fischer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
automobile Fuel Economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, James M Sallee, Ian W. H. Parry, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel Economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the automobile market, including their impacts on Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel Economy regulations and discuss what the results of these methodologies imply for policy. Following that, we compare the welfare effects of Fuel Economy regulations to those of Fuel taxes and assess whether or not these two policies can be complements. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel Economy regulations towards a "feebate" system.
-
automobile Fuel Economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Research Papers in Economics, 2010Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, James M Sallee, Ian W. H. Parry, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel Economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel Economy regulations and discuss the policy implications of the results. We also compare the welfare effects of Fuel Economy standards with those of Fuel taxes and assess whether these two policies complement each other. Finally, we review arguments in favor of a “feebate” system, which imposes fees on inefficient vehicles and provides rebates for efficient vehicles.
-
Are consumers or Fuel Economy policies efficient
Reducing Climate Impacts in the Transportation Sector, 2008Co-Authors: Carolyn FischerAbstract:This chapter describes how recent increases in oil prices, concern about energy security, and apprehension over global climate change have turned attention to Fuel Economy policy in the United States (U.S.). The primary mechanism to reduce oil use in the U.S. is the set of corporate average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Paralleling current concerns of more than three decades ago, the U.S. Congress was worried in 1975 about increasing imports on crude oil, especially from politically and militarily unstable parts of the world. One response was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, in which Congress mandated for the first time that passenger cars and so-called light-duty trucks—pickup trucks, minivans, and sport utility vehicles (SUVs)—had to meet fleetwide CAFE Fuel Economy standards. Working in concert with sharply increasing gasoline prices in the early years of the program, the CAFE standards resulted in significant improvements in Fuel Economy for both passenger cars and light-duty trucks. In evaluating the costs and benefits of these policy actions regarding Fuel Economy, the key question is whether consumers or Fuel Economy policies are economically efficient. If policies to address the problems associated with Fuel consumption are inefficient, they can be altered for improvement. Moreover, if consumers exhibit inefficient behavior in their choice of Fuel Economy in vehicles, those inefficiencies have important effects on the efficiency of Fuel Economy policies. Either way, the value of the current approach in regulating Fuel Economy in new vehicles as a cost-effective policy depends on whether or not consumers make inefficient choices.
-
Comparing flexibility mechanisms for Fuel Economy standards
Energy Policy, 2008Co-Authors: Carolyn FischerAbstract:Since 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program has been the main policy tool in the US for coping with the problems of increasing Fuel consumption and dependence on imported oil. The program mandates average Fuel Economy requirements for the new vehicle sales of each manufacturer's fleet, with separate standards for cars and light trucks. The fact that each manufacturer must on its own meet the standards means that the incentives to improve Fuel Economy are different across manufacturers and vehicle types, although the problems associated with Fuel consumption do not make such distinctions. This paper evaluates different mechanisms to offer automakers the flexibility of joint compliance with nationwide Fuel Economy goals: tradable CAFE credits, feebates, output-rebated fees, and tradable credits with banking. The policies are compared according to the short- and long-run economic incentives, as well as to issues of transparency, implementation, administrative and transaction costs, and uncertainty.
James M Sallee - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
automobile Fuel Economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2011Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, James M Sallee, Ian W. H. Parry, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel Economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect the automobile market, including their impacts on Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel Economy regulations and discuss what the results of these methodologies imply for policy. Following that, we compare the welfare effects of Fuel Economy regulations to those of Fuel taxes and assess whether or not these two policies can be complements. Finally, we review arguments for transitioning away from Fuel Economy regulations towards a "feebate" system.
-
The Taxation of Fuel Economy
Tax Policy and the Economy, 2011Co-Authors: James M SalleeAbstract:Executive SummaryPolicy makers have instituted a variety of Fuel Economy tax policies—polices that tax or subsidize new vehicle purchases on the basis of Fuel Economy performance—in the hopes of improving fleet Fuel Economy and reducing gasoline consumption. This article reviews existing policies and concludes that while they do work to improve vehicle Fuel Economy, the same goals could be achieved at a lower cost to society if policy makers instead directly taxed Fuel. Fuel Economy taxation, as it is currently practiced, invites several forms of gaming that could be eliminated by policy changes. Thus, even if policy makers prefer Fuel Economy taxation over Fuel taxes for reasons other than efficiency, there are still potential efficiency gains from reform.
-
automobile Fuel Economy standards impacts efficiency and alternatives
Research Papers in Economics, 2010Co-Authors: Soren T Anderson, James M Sallee, Ian W. H. Parry, Carolyn FischerAbstract:This paper discusses Fuel Economy regulations in the United States and other countries. We first describe how these programs affect Fuel use and other dimensions of the vehicle fleet. We then review different methodologies for assessing the costs of Fuel Economy regulations and discuss the policy implications of the results. We also compare the welfare effects of Fuel Economy standards with those of Fuel taxes and assess whether these two policies complement each other. Finally, we review arguments in favor of a “feebate” system, which imposes fees on inefficient vehicles and provides rebates for efficient vehicles.
-
The Taxation of Fuel Economy
National Bureau of Economic Research, 2010Co-Authors: James M SalleeAbstract:Policy-makers have instituted a variety of Fuel Economy tax policies -- polices that tax or subsidize new vehicle purchases on the basis of Fuel Economy performance -- in the hopes of improving fleet Fuel Economy and reducing gasoline consumption. This article reviews existing policies and concludes that while they do work to improve vehicle Fuel Economy, the same goals could be achieved at a lower cost to society if policy-makers instead directly taxed Fuel. Fuel Economy taxation, as it is currently practiced, invites several forms of gaming that could be eliminated by policy changes. Thus, even if policy-makers prefer Fuel Economy taxation over Fuel taxes for reasons other than efficiency, there are still potential efficiency gains from reform.
Aymeric Rousseau - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Fuel Economy of hybrid Fuel-cell vehicles
Journal of Power Sources, 2005Co-Authors: Rajesh K. Ahluwalia, Xiaoliang Wang, Aymeric RousseauAbstract:The potential improvement in Fuel Economy of a mid-size Fuel-cell vehicle by combining it with an energy storage system has been assessed. An energy management strategy is developed and used to operate the direct hydrogen, pressurized Fuel-cell system in a load-following mode and the energy storage system in a charge-sustaining mode. The strategy places highest priority on maintaining the energy storage system in a state where it can supply unanticipated boost power when the Fuel-cell system alone cannot meet the power demand. It is found that downsizing a Fuel-cell system decreases its efficiency on a drive cycle which is compensated by partial regenerative capture of braking energy. On a highway cycle with limited braking energy the increase in Fuel Economy with hybridization is small but on the stop-and-go urban cycle the Fuel Economy can improve by 27%. On the combined highway and urban drive cycles the Fuel Economy of the Fuel-cell vehicle is estimated to increase by up to 15% by hybridizing it with an energy storage system.
-
Fuel Economy of hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles
Journal of Power Sources, 2004Co-Authors: Rajesh K. Ahluwalia, Aymeric Rousseau, Xiaoliang Wang, R KumarAbstract:Abstract On the basis of on-road energy consumption, Fuel Economy (FE) of hydrogen Fuel cell light-duty vehicles is projected to be 2.5–2.7 times the Fuel Economy of the conventional gasoline internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) on the same platforms. Even with a less efficient but higher power density 0.6 V per cell than the base case 0.7 V per cell at the rated power point, the hydrogen Fuel cell vehicles are projected to offer essentially the same Fuel Economy multiplier. The key to obtaining high Fuel Economy as measured on standardized urban and highway drive schedules lies in maintaining high efficiency of the Fuel cell (FC) system at low loads. To achieve this, besides a high performance Fuel cell stack, low parasitic losses in the air management system (i.e., turndown and part load efficiencies of the compressor–expander module) are critical.
