Governments around the world are attempting to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with distinct fuel and vehicle policies. As alternative powertrains and fuels are introduced, vehicle–fuel interactions become more intense and policy design and effectiveness become more problematic. These interactions are analyzed for fuel providers complying with California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard program and automakers complying with the Pavley vehicle GHG emission standards. It is found that each program could significantly affect industry compliance in the other program once both programs are implemented. This analysis, in turn, indicates that continuing coevolving adjustments will be needed to ensure that rules directed at vehicle manufacturers and fuel providers result in the most cost-effective and efficient achievement of GHG and energy goals. Specific suggestions are offered for updating and upgrading the two regulatory programs. Although the findings are specific to California, they are also broadly generalizable since many countries (including the European Union and the United States) are moving toward similar regulatory regimes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Energy Technology Perspectives: Scenarios and Strategies to 2050.International Energy Agency, Paris, 2008.
2.
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2006.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2008.
3.
Climate Change Draft Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, June 2008.
4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Changes to Renewable Fuel Standard Program. Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 99, May 26, 2009.
5.
Initial Statement of Reasons: Proposed Regulation to Implement the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, March 2009.
6.
European Parliament Legislative Resolution of 17 December 2008 on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources [COM(2008)0019-C6–0046/2008-2008/0016(COD)]. European Parliament, 2008.
7.
YangC., McCollumD. L., McCarthyR. W., and LeightyW.Meeting an 80% Reduction in Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation by 2050: A Case Study in California. Transportation Research, Vol. 14D, No. 3, 2009, pp. 147–156.
8.
AnF.International Comparison of Policies to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Passenger Vehicles. In D. Sperling and J. S. Cannon, Driving Climate Change: Cutting Carbon from Transportation, Academic Press, Burlington, Mass., 2007, Chap. 9.
9.
Proposed Rulemaking to Establish Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Sept. 15, 2009.
10.
Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles: Initial Statement of Reasons.California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, 2004.
11.
California Air Resources Board.Final Regulation Order: Amendments to Sections 1900 and 1961 and Adoption of New Sections 1961.1. Title 13, California Code of Regulations, 2004. http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/revfro.pdf. Accessed May 19, 2009.
12.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard Executive Order S-01-07.Office of the Governor, Sacramento, Calif., 2007. http://gov.ca.gov/executive-order/5172. Accessed April 22, 2007.
13.
FarrellA. E., and SperlingD., with AronsS. M., BrandtA. R., DelucchiM. A., EggertA., HayaB. K., HughesJ., JenkinsB. M., JonesA. D., KammenD. M., KaffkaS. R., KnittelC. R., LemoineD. M., MartinE. W., MelainaM. W., OgdenJ. M., PlevinR. J., TurnerB. T., WilliamsR. B., and YangC.A Low Carbon Fuel Standard for California, Part 1: Technical Analysis. UCD-ITS-RR-07–07. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2007.
14.
FarrellA. E., and SperlingD., with BrandtA. R., EggertA., HayaB. K., HughesJ., JenkinsB. M., JonesA. D., KammenD. M., KnittelC. R., MelainaM. W., O'HareM., and PlevinR. J.A Low Carbon Fuel Standard for California, Part 2: Policy Analysis. UCD-ITS-RR-07-08. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, 2007.
15.
TurnerB.E85, Flex-Fuel Vehicles, and AB 1493: Integrating Biofuels into California's Vehicular Greenhouse Gas Regulations. MS thesis. University of California, Berkeley, Nov. 2006.
16.
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles.Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future, Boston, Mass., Sept. 2004.
17.
Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis: Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY 2011–2015 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks.NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, April 2008.
18.
KromerM. A., and HeywoodJ. B.A Comparative Assessment of Electric Propulsion Systems in the 2030 US Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet. 2008–01–0459. Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 2007.
19.
LutseyN., and SperlingD.Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Supply Curve for the United States for Transport Versus Other Sectors. Transportation Research, Vol. 14D, 2009, pp. 222–229.
20.
Energy Efficiency in Transportation. In Energy Efficiency Technologies: Opportunities, Risks, and Tradeoffs, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2009, Chap. 2.
21.
GrahamR.Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Electric Vehicle Options. Final Report. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, Calif., 2001.
22.
LipmanT. E., and DelucchiM. A.A Retail and Lifecycle Cost Analysis of Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Transportation Research, Vol. 11D, 2006, pp. 115–132.
23.
GreeneD. L., DuleepK. G., and McManusW.Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Market. ORNL/TM-2004/181. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2004.
24.
WangM.Updated Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Results of Fuel Ethanol. Presented at the 15th International Symposium on Alcohol Fuels, San Diego, Calif., Sept. 26–28, 2005.
25.
FarrellA. E., PlevinR. L., TurnerB. T., JonesA. D., O'HareM., and KammenD. M.Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals. Science, Vol. 311, 2006, pp. 506–508.
26.
HillJ., NelsonE., TilmanD., PolaskyS., and TiffanyD.Environmental, Economic, and Energetic Costs and Benefits of Biodiesel and Ethanol Biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 103, 2006, pp. 11206–11210.
27.
WangM., WuM., and HuoH.Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Impacts of Different Corn Ethanol Plant Types. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 2, 2007, p. 024001.
28.
PlevinR. J., and MuellerS.The Effect of CO2 Regulations on the Cost of Corn Ethanol Production. Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 3, 2008, p. 024003.
29.
TIAX, LLC.Full Fuel Cycle Assessment: Well To Wheels Energy Inputs, Emissions, and Water Impacts.California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 2007.
30.
SheehanJ., CamobrecoV., DuffieldJ., GraboskiM., and ShapouriH.Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use in an Urban Bus: Final Report. NREL/SR-580-24089. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colo., 1998.
31.
Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Expanded Renewable and Alternative Fuels Use. EPA-420-F-07-035. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2007.
32.
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs.National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2004.
33.
Committee on Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies.Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies: Focus on Hydrogen.National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.
34.
State Alternative Fuel Plan. CEC-600-2007-011-CMF. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, 2007.
VyasA., SantiniD., DuobaM., and AlexanderM.Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles: How Does One Determine Their Potential for Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence? Presented at Electric Vehicle Symposium-23, Anaheim, Calif., IEEE, Dec. 2–5, 2007.
41.
RousseauA.PHEV Battery Requirements: Uncertainty Based on Real World Drive Cycles and Impact on Fuel Efficiency. Presented at 1st Annual Conference on Advanced Lithium Batteries for Automobile Applications, Argonne National Laboratories, Argonne, Ill., 2008.
42.
2007 California Motor Vehicle Stock, Travel and Fuel Forecast. Division of Transportation System Information, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, 2008.
FaizA., WeaverC. S., and WalshM. P.Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles: Standards and Technologies for Controlling Emissions.World Bank, Washington, D.C., 1996.
46.
State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions.National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2006.
47.
Bellagio Memorandum on Motor Vehicle Policy: Principles for Vehicles and Fuels in Response to Global Environmental and Health Imperatives.Energy Foundation, San Francisco, Calif., June 2001.
