Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T14:02:13.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Energy Efficiency Gap in EPA’s Benefit-Cost Analysis of Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Regulations: A Case Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2015

Gloria Helfand  and
Reid Dorsey-Palmateer
Gloria Helfand*
Affiliation:
Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA, e-mail: helfand.gloria@epa.gov
Reid Dorsey-Palmateer
Affiliation:
University of Michigan - Economics, 611 Tappan St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA, e-mail: reiddp@umich.edu
*
*e-mail: helfand.gloria@epa.gov
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent federal regulations require new light-duty vehicles to have lower greenhouse gas emissions and better fuel economy. This paper presents the reasoning used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its benefit-cost analysis of the standards. According to EPA, many available technologies could achieve these goals without affecting other vehicle qualities, and fuel savings would pay for the increased technology costs with short payback periods. This lack of market adoption of cost-effective energy-saving technologies has been termed the energy efficiency gap or energy efficiency paradox. It suggests that either there are additional costs, such as changes in vehicle qualities, not considered in cost estimates, or markets for energy-saving technologies are not achieving all cost-effective savings. EPA argued that, even if consumers do not accurately consider expected future fuel savings when buying new vehicles, consumers are projected to receive those savings; the latter measure should reflect the impacts of the rule on fuel expenditures. For the cost side, EPA used a measure of technology costs required to meet the standards while maintaining baseline (2008) vehicle attributes. Estimates of how these costs would be affected by changes in vehicle attributes were not included.

Keywords

D61L51Q58energy paradoxEnvironmental Protection Agencyfuel economytransportation
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Summer 2015 , pp. 432 - 454
Copyright
© Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allcott, H. & Greenstone, M. (2012). Is There an Energy Efficiency Gap? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), 3–28.Google Scholar
Allcott, H. & Wozny, N.(2010). Gasoline prices, fuel economy, and the energy paradox. MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research WP-2010-003. Retrieved from http://web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2010-003.pdf.Google Scholar
Bento, A. M., Li, S. & Roth, K. (2012). Is There an Energy Paradox in Fuel Economy? A Note on the Role of Consumer Heterogeneity and Sorting Bias. Economics Letters, 115, 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernheim, B. D. & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond Revealed Preference: Choice-theoretic Foundations for Behavioral Welfare Economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.Google Scholar
Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. (2008). How are Preferences Revealed? Journal of Public Economics, 92(8), 1787–1794.Google Scholar
Blumstein, C. & Taylor, M.(2013). Rethinking the energy-efficiency Gap: producers, intermediaries, and innovation. EI @ Haas WP 243. Retrieved from https://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/pdf/working_papers/WP243.pdf.Google Scholar
Busse, M., Knittel, C. R. & Zettelmeyer, F. (2013). Are Consumers Myopic? Evidence from New and Used Car Purchases. American Economic Review, 103(1), 220–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, M., Silva-Risso, J. & Zettelmeyer, F. (2006). $1000 Cash Back: The Pass-Through of Auto Manufacturer Promotions. American Economic Review, 96(4), 1253–1270.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F. (2010). Design of Stated Preference Surveys: Is There More to Learn From Behavioral Economics? Environmental and Resource Economics, 46, 176–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, W. J. (1993). Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review. Federal Register, 58(190), 51735.Google Scholar
FEV, Inc.(2009). Light-duty technology cost analysis pilot study. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-09-020.Google Scholar
Fischer, C., Harrington, W. & Parry, I. (2007). Should Fuel Economy Standards Actually be Tightened? The Energy Journal, 28(4), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gayer, T. & Viscusi, W. K. (2013). Overriding Consumer Preferences With Energy Regulations. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 43, 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, K. & Palmer, K.(2013). Bridging the energy efficiency gap: insights for policy from economic theory and empirical analysis. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper RFF DP 13-02. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-13-02-REV.pdf.Google Scholar
Greene, D. L.(2010). How consumers value fuel economy: a literature review. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-420-R-10-008.Google Scholar
Greene, D. L. (2011). Uncertainty, Loss Aversion, and Markets for Energy Efficiency. Energy Economics, 33, 608–616.Google Scholar
Gron, A. & Swenson, D. L. (2000). Cost Pass-Through in the US Automobile Market. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(2), 316–324.Google Scholar
Helfand, G. & Wolverton, A. (2011). Evaluating the Consumer Response to Fuel Economy: A Review of the Literature. International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(2), 103–146.Google Scholar
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government (2010). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for-RIA.pdf.Google Scholar
Kahn, M. E. (2007). Do Greens Drive Hummers or Hybrids? Environmental Ideology as a Determinant of Consumer Choice. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 54(2), 129–145.Google Scholar
Klier, T. & Linn, J. (2012). New Vehicle Characteristics and the Cost of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standard. RAND Journal of Economics, 43(1), 186–213.Google Scholar
Klier, T. & Linn, J.(2013). Technological change, vehicle characteristics, and the opportunity costs of fuel economy standards. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper DP 13-40. Retrieved from http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-13-40.pdf.Google Scholar
Knittel, C. (2012). Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-offs and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector. American Economic Review, 101(7), 3368–3399.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Sugden, R. (2005). Experienced Utility as a Standard of Policy Evaluation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32, 161–181.Google Scholar
Robinson, L. A. & Hammitt, J. K. (2011). Behavioral Economics and the Conduct of Benefit-cost Analysis: Towards Principles and Standards. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, 2(2), Article 5.Google Scholar
Sallee, J. M.(2012). Rational inattention and energy efficiency. Working Paper, University of Chicago and NBER. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19545.pdf.Google Scholar
Sallee, J. M., West, S. E. & Fan, W.(2011). The effect of gasoline prices on the demand for fuel economy in used vehicles: empirical evidence and policy implications. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Slovic, P., Finucane, M. L., Peters, E. & MacGregor, D. G. (2004). Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts About Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311–322.Google Scholar
Smith, V. K. & Moore, E. (2010). Behavioral Economics and Benefit Cost Analysis. Environmental and Resource Economics, 46(2), 217–234.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. (2005). Coping With Preference Anomalies in Cost-benefit Analysis: a Market Simulation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 32(1), 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supreme Court of the United States (2007). Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al., No. 05-1120.Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Turrentine, T. S. & Kurani, K. S. (2007). Car Buyers and Fuel Economy? Energy Policy, 35, 1213–1223.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013). Light-duty automotive technology, carbon dioxide emissions, and fuel economy trends: 1975 through 2013. EPA-420-R-13-011. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/fetrends/1975-2013/420r13011.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality (2010a). EPA and NHTSA finalize historic national program to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy for cars and trucks. EPA-420-F-10-014. Retrieved fromhttp://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f10014.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010b). Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-10-009. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10009.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Economics (2010c). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses. EPA-240-R-10-001. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0568-50.pdf/$file/EE-0568-50.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Department of Transportation (2010a). Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register, 75(88), 25324–25728.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Department of Transportation (2010b). Final Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards: Joint Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, EPA-420-R-10-901. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420r10901.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Department of Transportation (2011). Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-duty Engines and Vehicles; Final Rule. Federal Register, 76(179), 57106–57513.Google Scholar
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Department of Transportation (2012). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule. Federal Register, 77(199), 62623–63200.Google Scholar
White House, Office of Management and Budget (2003). Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4.Google Scholar
Whitefoot, K. S. & Skerlos, S. J. (2012). Design Incentives to Increase Vehicle Size Created From the US Footprint-based Fuel Economy Standards. Energy Policy, 41, 402–411.Google Scholar