In this paper we estimate the cost-effectiveness, in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, of increasing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard to 38 miles per gallon and substituting methanol, compressed natural gas (CNG), and reformulated gasoline for conventional gasoline. Greenhouse gas emissions are assessed over the entire fuel cycle and include carbon dioxide, methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide emissions. To account for joint environmental benefits, the cost per ton of greenhouse gas reduced is adjusted for reductions in volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions, an ozone precursor. CNG is found to be the most cost-effective of these alternatives, followed by increasing the CAFE standard, substituting methanol for gasoline, and substituting reformulated for conventional gasoline. Including the VOC benefits does not change the ranking of the alternatives, but does make the alternative fuels look better relative to increasing the CAFE standard. None of the alternatives look cost-effective should a carbon tax of $35 per ton be passed, and only CNG under optimistic assumptions looks cost- effective with a tax of $100 per ton of carbon.
BechtelInc. (1989). California Fuel Methanol Cost Study, Volume I, Executive Summary, San Francisco: Chevron USA, January.
2.
BresnahanT.F.YaoD.A. (1985). “The Nonpecuniary Costs of Automobile Emissions Standards.” The RAND Journal of Economics16(4): 437-55.
3.
CalwellC.J. (1990). “Link Between Emissions, Fuel Economy.” Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Spring: 13-18.
4.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (1990). Carbon Charges as a Response to Global Warming: The Effect of Taxing Fossil Fuels, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Congress, August.
5.
CrandallR.W.GruenspechtH.K.KeelerT.E.LaveL.B. (1986). Regulating the Automobile, Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution.
6.
CrandallR.W.GruenspechtH.K.KeelerT.E.Laveand L.B.GrahamJ.D. (1989). “The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Automobile Safety.” Journal of Law and Economics32(April): 97-118.
7.
DahlC.A. (1986). “Gasoline Demand Survey.” The Energy Journal7(1): 64-82.
8.
DahlC.A.SternerT. (1991). “A Survey of Econometric Gasoline Demand Elasticities.” International Journal of Energy Systems11(2): 53-76.
9.
DarmstadterJ.JonesA. (1990). “Prospects for Reduced CO2 Emissions in Automotive Transport”. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future Discussion Paper ENR90-15, August.
10.
DeluchiM.A. (1991a). “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases From the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity,” Draft Report, June3.
11.
DeluchiM.A. (1991b). “Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity,” Final Report, June26.
12.
DeluchiM.A. (1991c). Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity, Argonne, IL: Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, November.
13.
DifiglioC.DuleepK.G.GreeneD. (1990). “Cost-effectiveness of Future Fuel Economy Improvements.” The Energy Journal11(1): 65-86.
14.
DuleepK.G. (1991). Supplemental Document B (dated May 7) from Senate Energy Committee Hearing on the “National Energy Security Act of 1991” (S.1220), June5.
15.
GreeneD. (1992). “Vehicle Use and Fuel Economy: How Big Is the “ReboundEffect?”” The Energy Journal13(1): 117-143.
16.
GusheeD.E. (1988). “Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Methanol as a Vehicle Fuel”. CRS Report for Congress, June3.
17.
HoS.P.RennerT.A. (1990). The Global Warming Impact of Attainment Strategies Using Alternative Fuels. Presented at Air and Waste Management Conference on Tropospheric Ozone and Environment, Los Angeles, California, March 19-22.
18.
KhazzoomD. J. (1991). “The Impact of a Gasoline Tax on Auto Exhaust Emissions.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management10(Summer): 434-454.
19.
KrupnickA.J. (1988). An Analysis of Selected Health Benefits form Reductions in Photochemical Oxidants in the Northeastern United States. Brian J. Morton, ed. Final Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality and Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, N.C., Washington, D.C., Resources for the Future, September.
20.
KrupnickA.J.WallsM. (1992). “The Cost effectiveness of Methanol for Reducing Motor Vehicle Emissions and Urban Ozone Levels.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management11 (3): 373-396.
21.
LashofD.A.AhujaD.R. (1990). “Relative Contributions of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to Global Warming.” Nature344, April 5: 529-531.
22.
ManneA.S.RichelsR.G. (1991). “Global CO2 Emission Reductions — The Impacts of Rising Energy Costs.” The Energy Journal12(1): 87-107.
23.
National Academy of Sciences/Research Council (NAS/NRC) (1992). Automotive Fuel Economy: How Far Should We Go? Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
24.
National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine (1991). Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming: Report of the Mitigation Panel, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
25.
NordhausW.D. (1991). “The Cost of Slowing Climate Change: A Survey.” The Energy Journal19(1): 37-65.
26.
RinekL.M., (1991). Potential for Improved Fuel Economy in Passenger Cars and Light Trucks. Prepared by SRI International for Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. (Project #1955), July.
27.
RusinM. (1989). API Unpublished Paper on Fuel Economy Standards and Vehicle Tailpipe Emissions, October13.
28.
Sierra Research (1989). “Reactive Organic Gas Emission Factors And Fuel Economy Estimates for Advanced Technology Gasoline- and Methanol- Fueled Vehicles,” Report No. SR89-10-01, prepared for Western States Petroleum Association, Sacramento, CA: Sierra Research, Inc., October30.
29.
UnnaschStefan, (1989). Comparing the Impact of Different Transportation Fuels on the Greenhouse Effect. For the California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA., March.
30.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) (1991). Improving Automobile Fuel Economy: New Standards, New Approaches, OTA-E-504, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, October.
31.
U.S. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (EIA) (1989). Annual Outlook for Oil and Gas 1990, Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Energy.
32.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1989). “Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of Methanol as an Automotive Fuel,” Special Report, Office of Mobile Sources, September.
33.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1990). Analysis of the Economic and Environmental Effects of Compressed Natural Gas as a Vehicle Fuel, Volume 1: Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Special Report, Office of Mobile Sources, April.
34.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1991). U.S. EPA Note—From Richard Rykowski to Kevin Neyland and Rich Theroux: A Transmittal of Requested Economic Analyses Concerning Reformulated Gasoline, May31.
35.
WallsM. A. (1992). “Differentiated Products and Regulation: The Welfare Costs of Natural Gas Vehicles.” Washington, DC: Resources for the Future Discussion Paper ENR 92-01, March.
36.
Walls CollinsM. A. C.RadinS.KrupnickA.DarmstadterJ. (1991). “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Alternative Fuels.” Prepared for The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy Analysis, Washington D.C., Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, April.
