Research Questions for the Midterm CAFE Review: The Fuel Efficiency Gap

This is the second in a series of blog posts by RFF’s transportation team that will address some of the key research questions for the midterm CAFE review.

traffic jam

Source: iStockphoto

As the first post in this series described, US standards for passenger vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions are slated to tighten steeply. By 2025, the greenhouse gas standards require a fleet-wide average that’s equivalent to about 54 miles per gallon. The goals of the standards are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy security, and reduce consumers’ fuel costs. When the two regulatory agencies that administer the standards—the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration—estimated the costs and benefits of meeting the standards, the estimated value of fuel savings dominates the other benefits, accounting for about 80 percent of the expected benefits. Indeed, these savings outweigh the expected costs of the regulation by three to one.

With such large fuel savings, we would expect consumers to demand fuel-saving technologies and manufacturers to adopt them. But we don’t see this happening in the market place—a situation known as the fuel efficiency gap.

The literature trying to explain this gap is voluminous and varied, but a recent journal article and working paper stand out. Both argue that of all the explanations for the gap, consumer undervaluation of fuel economy benefits is not one of them. Each paper suggests that consumers are willing to pay close to, if perhaps slightly less than, $1 for $1 worth of expected fuel savings. These results are based on the effects of gasoline prices on actual consumer vehicle choices and on vehicle prices.

There are other possible explanations:

  1. Hidden costs. Maybe the true costs to consumers and to manufacturers are larger than they appear. Perhaps those fuel saving technologies degrade performance or some other attribute of the vehicle. Or maybe there are additional adoption costs (real or perceived), say, from redesigning the vehicle, which possibly are not included in the cost estimates.
  2. Consumer demand. Recall that the recent evidence (see above) is based on how gas prices affect consumer purchasing decisions; it’s possible that consumers would respond differently when manufacturers adopt fuel-saving technology—say, if consumers have better information about gas prices than about their vehicle’s fuel economy.
  3. Consumer heterogeneity and manufacturer competition. Maybe manufacturers are (or appear) slow to act for other reasons. As we discussed at a recent RFF workshop, there’s growing evidence that consumer demand for fuel economy is quite heterogeneous. Consequently, manufacturers don’t choose fuel economy based on average consumer demand. Instead, they may design some vehicles for consumers with a high willingness to pay for fuel savings and other vehicles for consumers with a low willingness to pay. Another possibility is that manufacturers decide to adopt technology based on what their competitors are doing. Either case could cause technology adoption to be slower than if manufacturers simply compared technology costs with the value of the fuel savings.

As far as we can tell, the literature does not provide much evidence for or against these, or any other, explanations. The fuel efficiency gap should be addressed because a lot is at stake—both in cost–benefit analysis of future standards and in policy design. Depending on the answer, the regulatory agencies may need to adjust their cost–benefit approach, which could change the calculations and shed light on whether the slated tightening is justified—or if there should be even tighter standards. And taking into account consumer heterogeneity or competition among manufacturers would suggest that other policies—raising the gas guzzler tax or setting a minimum standard, for example—could yield the same benefits at lower costs as a fuel economy standard.

About Joshua Linn

Josh Linn’s research centers on the effect of environmental regulation and market incentives on technology, with particular focus on the electricity sector and markets for new vehicles. His work on the electricity sector has compared the effectiveness of cap and trade and alternative policy instruments in promoting new technology, including renewable electricity technologies.

About Virginia D. McConnell

Virginia McConnell is a senior fellow at Resources for the Future. Her research focuses on the effects of pricing and regulatory policies on environmental and economic outcomes, primarily in the areas of transportation and land use. McConnell is also a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, and has recently served on a number of National Research Council Panels, including the Committees on Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels and the Fuel Economy of Light Duty Vehicles.

About Alan J. Krupnick

Alan Krupnick is director of Resources for the Future’s Center for Energy Economics and Policy and a senior fellow at RFF. As the director of CEEP, Alan works with the full complement of Center researchers to establish and carry out the Center’s research agenda.

Views expressed above are those of the author. Resources for the Future does not take institutional positions on legislative or policy questions. All information contained on Common Resources is intended for informational and educational purposes and may only be used for these purposes. Please see RFF's Terms of Use for further information.

Comments
2 Responses to “Research Questions for the Midterm CAFE Review: The Fuel Efficiency Gap”
Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying...
  1. […] the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and discussed unresolved issues for this review about the fuel efficiency gap. In this post, we focus on issues raised by the shift to vehicle footprint–based standards. Until […]

  2. […] average fuel economy (CAFE) standards and discussed important areas of research related to the fuel efficiency gap and the footprint-based standards. In this post, we focus on provisions in the rule that allow car […]



Leave A Comment