ACS Publications. Most Trusted. Most Cited. Most Read
My Activity
Recently Viewed
You have not visited any articles yet, Please visit some articles to see contents here.
CONTENT TYPES

Figure 1Loading Img

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Adoption Increases Fleet Gasoline Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions under United States Corporate Average Fuel Economy Policy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards

View Author Information
Carnegie Mellon University, 5000 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213, United States
*Phone: (412) 268-3765. E-mail: [email protected]
Cite this: Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 5, 2165–2174
Publication Date (Web):February 11, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b02842
Copyright © 2016 American Chemical Society
Article Views
1949
Altmetric
-
Citations
LEARN ABOUT THESE METRICS
Read OnlinePDF (874 KB)
Supporting Info (1)»

Abstract

Abstract Image

The United States Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emission standards are designed to reduce petroleum consumption and GHG emissions from light-duty passenger vehicles. They do so by requiring automakers to meet aggregate criteria for fleet fuel efficiency and carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates. Several incentives for manufacturers to sell alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) have been introduced in recent updates of CAFE/GHG policy for vehicles sold from 2012 through 2025 to help encourage a fleet technology transition. These incentives allow automakers that sell AFVs to meet less-stringent fleet efficiency targets, resulting in increased fleet-wide gasoline consumption and emissions. We derive a closed-form expression to quantify these effects. We find that each time an AFV is sold in place of a conventional vehicle, fleet emissions increase by 0 to 60 t of CO2 and gasoline consumption increases by 0 to 7000 gallons (26,000 L), depending on the AFV and year of sale. Using projections for vehicles sold from 2012 to 2025 from the Energy Information Administration, we estimate that the CAFE/GHG AFV incentives lead to a cumulative increase of 30 to 70 million metric tons of CO2 and 3 to 8 billion gallons (11 to 30 billion liters) of gasoline consumed over the vehicles’ lifetimes – the largest share of which is due to legacy GHG flex-fuel vehicle credits that expire in 2016. These effects may be 30–40% larger in practice than we estimate here due to optimistic laboratory vehicle efficiency tests used in policy compliance calculations.

Supporting Information

ARTICLE SECTIONS
Jump To

The Supporting Information is available free of charge on the ACS Publications website at DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b02842.

  • Additional detail on the derivation of equations for a binding GHG standard, derivation of equations for a binding CAFE standard, results for the binding CAFE case, and additional figures and tables providing additional information about the attribute-based CAFE/GHG standards and their stringency with respect to recent automaker vehicle fleets, detail on projected cumulative emissions based on several AEO vehicle sales projections, comparisons of two-cycle versus five-cycle vehicle efficiency measurements, data on declining annual VMT over a vehicle’s life, and a list of AFV attributes used by the EPA. (PDF)

Terms & Conditions

Most electronic Supporting Information files are available without a subscription to ACS Web Editions. Such files may be downloaded by article for research use (if there is a public use license linked to the relevant article, that license may permit other uses). Permission may be obtained from ACS for other uses through requests via the RightsLink permission system: http://pubs.acs.org/page/copyright/permissions.html.

Cited By

This article is cited by 51 publications.

  1. Shiqi Ou Zhenhong Lin Vittorio Manente Jessey Bouchard Xin He Zifeng Lu Yu Gan Yan Zhou Steve Przesmitzki Daniel J. De Castro Gomez Nouf Aburas William Lilley Pierre Olivier Calendini . Light-Duty Vehicle Transportation Policy and Implication on Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ,,, 21-81. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1412.ch002
  2. Jonn Axsen, Scott Hardman, Alan Jenn. What Do We Know about Zero-Emission Vehicle Mandates?. Environmental Science & Technology 2022, 56 (12) , 7553-7563. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c08581
  3. Ranjit R. Desai, Roger B. Chen, Eric Hittinger, Eric Williams. Heterogeneity in Economic and Carbon Benefits of Electric Technology Vehicles in the US. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (2) , 1136-1146. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b02874
  4. Avi Chaim Mersky, Constantine Samaras. Environmental and Economic Trade-Offs of City Vehicle Fleet Electrification and Photovoltaic Installation in the U.S. PJM Interconnection. Environmental Science & Technology 2020, 54 (1) , 380-389. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b04299
  5. Alan Jenn, Scott Hardman, Sanya Carley, Nikolaos Zirogiannis, Denvil Duncan, John D. Graham. Cost Implications for Automaker Compliance of Zero Emissions Vehicle Requirements. Environmental Science & Technology 2019, 53 (2) , 564-574. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b03635
  6. Kate S. Whitefoot, Meredith L. Fowlie, and Steven J. Skerlos . Compliance by Design: Influence of Acceleration Trade-offs on CO2 Emissions and Costs of Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Regulations. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (18) , 10307-10315. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b03743
  7. Niall P. D. Martin, Justin D. K. Bishop, and Adam M. Boies . How Well Do We Know the Future of CO2 Emissions? Projecting Fleet Emissions from Light Duty Vehicle Technology Drivers. Environmental Science & Technology 2017, 51 (5) , 3093-3101. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04746
  8. Tamara L. Sheldon. Evaluating Electric Vehicle Policy Effectiveness and Equity. Annual Review of Resource Economics 2022, 14 (1) , 669-688. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-022834
  9. Haonan Wu, Qingchao Li, Yuke Zhang, Mingyue Qiu, Yuequan Liao, Hongxue Xu, Lijuan Shi, Qun Yi. One-step supramolecular fabrication of ionic liquid/ZIF-8 nanocomposites for low-energy CO2 capture from flue gas and conversion. Fuel 2022, 322 , 124175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2022.124175
  10. Jaeha Lee, Yongwoo Kim, Sungha Hwang, Gwang Seok Hong, Eunwon Lee, Hyokyoung Lee, Changho Jeong, Chang Hwan Kim, Jong Suk Yoo, Do Heui Kim. Toward gasoline vehicles with zero harmful emissions by storing NO at Pd nanoparticle–CeO2 interface during the cold-start period. Chem Catalysis 2022, 97 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.checat.2022.07.004
  11. Ranjit R. Desai, Eric Hittinger, Eric Williams. Interaction of Consumer Heterogeneity and Technological Progress in the US Electric Vehicle Market. Energies 2022, 15 (13) , 4722. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15134722
  12. Anping Zhou, Jianhui Wang. Behind-the-meter renewable hydrogen: Challenges and solutions. The Electricity Journal 2022, 35 (5) , 107134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2022.107134
  13. Harsha Vajjarapu, Ashish Verma. Understanding the mitigation potential of sustainable urban transport measures across income and gender groups. Journal of Transport Geography 2022, 102 , 103383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103383
  14. Mathan Chandran, Karthikeyan Palanisamy, David Benson, Senthilarasu Sundaram. A Review on Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicle Anatomy, Technology Evolution and Policy Drivers towards EVs and FCEVs Market Propagation. The Chemical Record 2022, 22 (2) https://doi.org/10.1002/tcr.202100235
  15. P. Sweety Jose, P. Subha Hency Jose, G. Jims John Wessley, P. Rajalakshmy. Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles. 2022,,, 31-42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-85424-9_2
  16. Kenneth T. Gillingham. Designing Fuel-Economy Standards in Light of Electric Vehicles. Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy 2022, 3 , 111-154. https://doi.org/10.1086/717220
  17. Arthur L. Ku, John D. Graham. Is California’s Electric Vehicle Rebate Regressive? A Distributional Analysis. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2022, 13 (1) , 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2022.2
  18. Rubal Dua, Scott Hardman, Yagyavalk Bhatt, Dimpy Suneja. Enablers and disablers to plug-in electric vehicle adoption in India: Insights from a survey of experts. Energy Reports 2021, 7 , 3171-3188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.05.025
  19. Nassir Ibrahim, Sharon Cox, Robert Mills, Andrew Aftelak, Hanifa Shah. Multi-objective decision-making methods for optimising CO2 decisions in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 314 , 128037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128037
  20. Ekaterina Rhodes, William A. Scott, Mark Jaccard. Designing flexible regulations to mitigate climate change: A cross-country comparative policy analysis. Energy Policy 2021, 156 , 112419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112419
  21. Yu Gan, Michael Wang, Zifeng Lu, Jarod Kelly. Taking into account greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles for transportation de-carbonization. Energy Policy 2021, 155 , 112353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112353
  22. Nicholas Pallonetti, Brett D. H. Williams. Refining Estimates of Fuel-Cycle Greenhouse-Gas Emission Reductions Associated with California’s Clean Vehicle Rebate Project with Program Data and Other Case-Specific Inputs. Energies 2021, 14 (15) , 4640. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154640
  23. Jie Chang, Yitao Liu, Qian Su, Lei Liu, Lili Deng, Ting Ying, Li Dong, Zhibin Luo, Qian Li, Weiguo Cheng. Regulation of Novel Multi‐Center Ionic Liquids for Synergetically Catalyzing CO 2 Conversion into Cyclic Carbonates. ChemistrySelect 2021, 6 (25) , 6380-6387. https://doi.org/10.1002/slct.202101172
  24. J. van den Bergh, J. Castro, S. Drews, F. Exadaktylos, J. Foramitti, F. Klein, T. Konc, I. Savin. Designing an effective climate-policy mix: accounting for instrument synergy. Climate Policy 2021, 21 (6) , 745-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2021.1907276
  25. Öivind Andersson, Pål Börjesson. The greenhouse gas emissions of an electrified vehicle combined with renewable fuels: Life cycle assessment and policy implications. Applied Energy 2021, 289 , 116621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116621
  26. Minrui Zhao, Hongni Gao, Qi Han, Jiaang Ge, Wei Wang, Jue Qu, . Development of a Driving Cycle for Fuzhou Using K-Means and AMPSO. Journal of Advanced Transportation 2021, 2021 , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5430137
  27. Naveen Kumar, Mukul Tomar, Ankit Sonthalia, Sidharth, Parvesh Kumar, Harveer S. Pali, Dushyant Mishra. Methanol-Based Economy: A Way Forward to Hydrogen. 2021,,, 563-585. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5667-8_23
  28. A.G. Olabi, Tabbi Wilberforce, Mohammad Ali Abdelkareem. Fuel cell application in the automotive industry and future perspective. Energy 2021, 214 , 118955. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2020.118955
  29. Kylie Conrad, John D. Graham. The Benefits and Costs of Automotive Regulations for Low-Income Americans. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 2021, 12 (3) , 518-549. https://doi.org/10.1017/bca.2021.12
  30. Ioan-Sorin Sorlei, Nicu Bizon, Phatiphat Thounthong, Mihai Varlam, Elena Carcadea, Mihai Culcer, Mariana Iliescu, Mircea Raceanu. Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles—A Brief Review of Current Topologies and Energy Management Strategies. Energies 2021, 14 (1) , 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14010252
  31. Xin He, Shiqi Ou, Yu Gan, Zifeng Lu, Steven Victor Przesmitzki, Jessey Lee Bouchard, Lang Sui, Amer Ahmad Amer, Zhenhong Lin, Rujie Yu, Yan Zhou, Michael Wang. Greenhouse gas consequences of the China dual credit policy. Nature Communications 2020, 11 (1) https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19036-w
  32. Mukul Tomar, Manas Choudhary, Devanshu Jain, Naveen Kumar. Performance Analysis and Economic Feasibility of Fuel Cell Vehicles: A Perspective Review. 2020,,https://doi.org/10.4271/2020-01-2256
  33. Rubal Dua, Kenneth White. Understanding latent demand for hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles using large-scale longitudinal survey data of US new vehicle buyers. Energy Efficiency 2020, 13 (6) , 1063-1074. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-020-09865-5
  34. Chandan Bhardwaj, Jonn Axsen, Florian Kern, David McCollum. Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2020, 135 , 309-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2020.03.011
  35. Hanjiro Ambrose, Alissa Kendall, Mark Lozano, Sadanand Wachche, Lew Fulton. Trends in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of future light duty electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2020, 81 , 102287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102287
  36. Tamara L. Sheldon, Rubal Dua. Gasoline Savings from Electric Vehicles in the US. 2020,,, 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38382-4_4
  37. Sanya Carley, Nikolaos Zirogiannis, Saba Siddiki, Denvil Duncan, John D. Graham. Overcoming the shortcomings of U.S. plug-in electric vehicle policies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2019, 113 , 109291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109291
  38. Mohammad Javad Saket, Abbas Maleki, Erfan Doroudgar Hezaveh, Mohammad Sadegh Karimi. Institutional analysis on impediments over fuel consumption reduction at Iran's transportation niches. Energy Policy 2019, 129 , 861-867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.052
  39. Alan Jenn, Inês L. Azevedo, Jeremy J. Michalek. Alternative-fuel-vehicle policy interactions increase U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2019, 124 , 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.04.003
  40. Joshua Linn, Virginia McConnell. Interactions between federal and state policies for reducing vehicle emissions. Energy Policy 2019, 126 , 507-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.10.052
  41. Nikolaos Zirogiannis, Denvil Duncan, Sanya Carley, Saba Siddiki, John D. Graham. The effect of CAFE standards on vehicle sales projections: A Total Cost of Ownership approach. Transport Policy 2019, 75 , 70-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.01.006
  42. Mitsuki Kaneko. A Lifecycle Analysis of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards in Japan. Energies 2019, 12 (4) , 677. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12040677
  43. Wendai Lv, Yuanlin Hu, Erping Li, Hongqin Liu, Hua Pan, Siping Ji, Tasawar Hayat, Ahmad Alsaedi, Bashir Ahmad. Evaluation of vehicle emission in Yunnan province from 2003 to 2015. Journal of Cleaner Production 2019, 207 , 814-825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.227
  44. Tamara L. Sheldon, Rubal Dua. Gasoline savings from clean vehicle adoption. Energy Policy 2018, 120 , 418-424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.057
  45. Kenneth P. Laberteaux, Karim Hamza. A study on opportune reduction in greenhouse gas emissions via adoption of electric drive vehicles in light duty vehicle fleets. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2018, 63 , 839-854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.07.012
  46. Saba Siddiki, Sanya Carley, Nikolaos Zirogiannis, Denvil Duncan, John Graham. Does dynamic federalism yield compatible policies? A study of the designs of federal and state vehicle policies. Policy Design and Practice 2018, 1 (3) , 215-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2018.1505186
  47. Junye Wang, Hualin Wang, Yi Fan. Techno-Economic Challenges of Fuel Cell Commercialization. Engineering 2018, 4 (3) , 352-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.05.007
  48. Yue Wang, Fuquan Zhao, Yinshuo Yuan, Han Hao, Zongwei Liu. Analysis of Typical Automakers’ Strategies for Meeting the Dual-Credit Regulations Regarding CAFC and NEVs. Automotive Innovation 2018, 1 (1) , 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42154-018-0010-3
  49. Shayak Sengupta, Daniel S. Cohan. Fuel cycle emissions and life cycle costs of alternative fuel vehicle policy options for the City of Houston municipal fleet. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2017, 54 , 160-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.039
  50. Jason M. Luk, Bradley A. Saville, Heather L. MacLean. Vehicle attribute trade-offs to meet the 2025 CAFE fuel economy target. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 2016, 49 , 154-171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.09.005
  51. Stephen P. Holland, Erin T. Mansur, Nicholas Z. Muller, Andrew J. Yates. Are There Environmental Benefits from Driving Electric Vehicles? The Importance of Local Factors. American Economic Review 2016, 106 (12) , 3700-3729. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150897

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

Pair your accounts.

Export articles to Mendeley

Get article recommendations from ACS based on references in your Mendeley library.

You’ve supercharged your research process with ACS and Mendeley!

STEP 1:
Click to create an ACS ID

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

Please note: If you switch to a different device, you may be asked to login again with only your ACS ID.

MENDELEY PAIRING EXPIRED
Your Mendeley pairing has expired. Please reconnect

This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By continuing to use the site, you are accepting our use of cookies. Read the ACS privacy policy.

CONTINUE