• May 25th 2007 at 4:19PM
  • 1
According to a new study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), the creation of a Clean Car Discount program can reduce global warming emissions from new cars and trucks by cutting as much as 33 percent pollution and provide up to $2,500 back to consumers in fuel savings and reduced operational costs.

The key of this program is creating a scheme of fees and rebates (known as "feebates") based on the pollution different new vehicles produce. The less a car pollute, the bigger the feebates are.

"Our analysis shows that by harnessing the power of price signals, feebates spur consumers to purchase and manufacturers to produce cleaner vehicles," said Walter McManus, director of UMTRI's Automotive Analysis Division, in a statement (available after the jump).

The study uses the program design of "The California Clean Car Discount Act" (AB 493) introduced by state Assemblyman Ira Ruskin. This bill directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement a self-financing program to provide one-time rebates for new passenger cars and trucks with low global warming pollution emissions, which are paid for by one-time point-of-purchase fees assessed on dirtier vehicles. Twenty-to-25 percent of cars and trucks, representing all vehicle types, must be included in a "zero band" that would not qualify for rebates or surcharges, according to the proposed legislation.

[Source: University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute]


California's Clean Car Program Would Cut Pollution, Save Drivers Money

ANN ARBOR, Mich., May 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A market-based incentive program to reduce global warming emissions from new cars and trucks would cut pollution as much as 33 percent and provide up to $2,500 in lifetime fuel savings for drivers, according to a new study by the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI).

The Clean Car Discount program creates a schedule of fees and rebates, collectively known as "feebates," based on the amount of global warming pollution different new vehicles produce.

"Our analysis shows that by harnessing the power of price signals, feebates spur consumers to purchase and manufacturers to produce cleaner vehicles," said Walter McManus, director of UMTRI's Automotive Analysis Division.

The study, "Economic Analysis of Feebates to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light Vehicles for California," uses the program design of "The California Clean Car Discount Act" (AB 493) introduced by state Assemblyman Ira Ruskin.

The bill directs the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to implement a self-financing program to provide one-time rebates for new passenger cars and trucks with low global warming pollution emissions, which are paid for by one- time point-of-purchase fees assessed on dirtier vehicles. Twenty-to-25 percent of cars and trucks, representing all vehicle types, must be included in a "zero band" that would not qualify for rebates or surcharges, according to the proposed legislation.

UMTRI's study examines the economic impact on consumers and manufacturers, as well as the resulting reductions in global warming emissions from the existing Pavley regulations and the feebates program by analyzing four alternative scenarios: 1) Pavley alone; 2) Feebates at $18 per gram of CO2- equivalent per mile; 3) Feebates at $36 per gram; and 4) Pavley plus feebates at $18 per gram. To determine the costs of reducing global warming pollution, McManus created cost curves using 39 emissions-reducing technology packages identified by CARB. The study's findings include:
  • California's Pavley regulation alone achieves 26.7 percent reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
  • Pavley plus feebates at $18 per gram (of CO2 per mile) achieves 25 percent more reductions than Pavley alone.
  • Retailers' revenues rise under all scenarios. Pavley plus feebates creates the greatest increase with retailers earning $55.7 billion in revenue, a $3.5 billion (6.7 percent) increase compared to base earnings.
  • Feebates, in conjunction with Pavley or alone, boost sales of cleaner cars.
  • Consumers save as much as $2,544 under all scenarios and all vehicle types over the lifetime of their vehicles from reduced operational and fuel costs.
"We concluded that a feebates program combined with California's Pavley law is a potent policy solution to reduce global warming emissions because everyone gains -- the consumer, the retailer and the environment we share," McManus said.

In California, vehicles are responsible for nearly a third of the state's total greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, there are more than 20 million passenger vehicles on California roads, with the fleet expected to grow by 1.9 million new passenger cars and trucks a year.

The California Assembly Appropriations Committee will consider AB 493 at the end of May, with an Assembly floor vote expected at the beginning of June. A copy of the UMTRI study can be found at http://www.umtri.umich.edu/.



I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 1 Comment
      • 7 Months Ago
      Sounds sketchy to me. If the surcharge is too low, not enough people will chose cleaner vehicles. If the surcharge is too high, the consumer doesn't get what he wants and the "adjustment period" when automakers have to revise their production plans to address the artificially forced changes in demand could have serious economic impacts. Finally, what vehicles would be in this "zero band"? If it truly is 20-25 percent of all vehicle types, what is the criteria for qualifying for the Zero Band designation? GHG emissions per individual vehicle? MPG? Sales volume? Whichever manufacturer gives the best blowjobs to the bureaucrats that implement this plan? To use an example, let's say that we're talking full-size trucks (all vehicle types, remember?). For the sake of argument, let's say that the Ford F-Series makes up 30% of all full-size truck sales. The GMC Sierra/Chevy Silverado twins make up roughly 35% between them. The Dodge Ram makes up 20% of the market, and the Toyota Tundra and Nissan Titan make up the remaining 15%. Where does the 20-25% come from? Is it all Dodge (or any other manufacturer)? Why? Is it 20-25% of each manufacturer's sales? What about the poor slob who buys the first truck over the manufacturer's quota, and gets hit with a $2000 surcharge? How is that fair? Is it only ones sold in California? What if it's some criteria like GHG emissions or MPG? Is that an overall figure, or is it weighted to the vehicle class (mid-size sedan vs Expedition-class SUVs)? Those figures can be manipulated fairly easily by both the manufacturers and whomever would be responsible for implementing this nightmare. It just sounds dumb.

    Share This Photo X