State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Assessment of Different Approaches to Setting Mobile-Source Standards
5 Assessment of Different Approaches to Setting Mobile-Source Standards
Pages 136-164
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 136... ...
RATIONALES FOR DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO SETTING MOBILE-SOURCE STANDARDS The current system for establishing mobile-source emissions standards in the United States is a compromise between two conflicting interests. From the perspective of a mobile-source manufacturer, the advantages of uniform national emissions standards are clear and compel 136
|
From page 137... ...
Arguments in Favor of Uniform Emissions Standards From the earliest days of regulation of pollution sources, some argued that pollution standards for new mobile sources should be set at a uniform level in all parts of the country. In fact, as this report describes in Chapter 3, the federal government preempted the ability of individual states to set separate mobile-source emissions standards and allowed only California to obtain a waiver from the preemption.
|
From page 138... ...
Mobile sources cross state lines and enforcing different state standards would add to costs. Economies of Scale Economies of scale in the production of mobile sources occurs when the cost per unit declines with the number of units produced.
|
From page 139... ...
The consolidation of vehicle manufacturers also points to the increased globalization that is occurring among manufacturers of mobile sources. Scale economies can reduce the cost of meeting any standard.
|
From page 140... ...
Gruenspecht (2002) explained this issue for the fuels industry in meeting multiple fuel standards and provided some evidence about how large the effect could be.
|
From page 141... ...
, which are required under the ZEV mandate, have been sold in Maine, even though Maine is not required to sell them. Enforcement Costs Because mobile-source emissions sources are numerous and can cross state lines, separate standards in different jurisdictions must be enforced.
|
From page 142... ...
By reducing the risks of technology-forcing standards, the laboratory state model allows the rest of the nation to enjoy cleaner air sooner than would be achievable otherwise. As discussed in previous chapters, much of the progress made in reducing emissions from mobile sources has come via regulations that set emissions standards beyond levels that could be
|
From page 143... ...
As the experience of having California and federal mobile-source emissions standards has increased, other advantages have appeared. The CARB regulatory process allows California standards to be amended more rapidly without the federal regulatory review in the face of changing market and technological conditions.
|
From page 144... ...
Region 2 would be willing to incur additional costs up to C2 to reduce NOx emissions up to Q2. The single uniform standard represented by Q1 is economically inefficient because it does not allow Region 2 to equate marginal control costs to marginal benefits.
|
From page 145... ...
concluded that local HC emission reductions may be effective in reducing ozone in urban centers, while NOx emissions reductions are more effective at distances removed from urban centers. Other qualifications to the simple model are also important.
|
From page 146... ...
HARMONIZATION OF STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES General Context Harmonization refers to the practice of aligning regulatory standards and procedures of different jurisdictions to relieve regulatory burdens on industry and consumers by allowing for greater scale economies in production and distribution. Most nations have adopted one of three types of emissions standards for mobile sources: (1)
|
From page 147... ...
companies in 2000. Harmonization of Standards and Certification Harmonization involves the levels of pollutant emissions and the test procedures used to measure emissions.
|
From page 148... ...
EPA. Balancing Harmonization Recognizing the needs of some states to adopt more stringent mobile-source emissions standards to help meet air quality goals, a desirable objective is harmonization of CARB's and EPA's certification procedures.
|
From page 149... ...
Assessment of Different Approaches to Setting Mobile-Source Standards 149 $25,000 $20,000 Additional price due to other ) $15,000 vehicle quality improvements 2001( sralloD$10,000 Price of regulated safety and emissions equipment $5,000 Price of a 1967 car without regulated safety and emissions equipment $0 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 196 196 197 197 197 197 197 198 198 198 198 198 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 199 200 200 Year FIGURE 5-2 Impacts of safety and emissions equipment and other quality improvements on average vehicle price from 1967 to 2001.
|
From page 150... ...
Employment is likely to rise in other industries, such as manufacturers of emissions-control equipment as more or different pollution-control components are needed. Despite requests, the committee has been unable to obtain detailed quantitative information on how vehicles and other mobile sources are priced and what the production and employment effects of different standards have been in the past.
|
From page 151... ...
The emissions reductions, air quality benefits, and health improvements of a stricter standard will occur in California, and the state is likely to weigh those benefits in assessing the need for the stricter standard. In addition, other jurisdictions
|
From page 152... ...
152 stfi eht la r ll e in states fu gye dr gh itiond ost-c bene arby ou rof ad oni erctristfi d of nte calhi urces ne ndaast alth hicle-price ext aprg son to cesirpnide ect states, ratstgnicirpno needeblsi ducto ve pr; paratesowtnisei ovegnniraeld an anhtsstoc sprealanogire of est s Star rd ndaa es;atstn-i geod forroemlu nds vo om cause an t-in refleb op pe de posfo er vehicle;r on Standards Otheg Stani caligool issiomefoxim effectsrevoll in not pe spiebl use ece sts co ghtim ond erctristfinahtsstocd largr gyetarstgnic fog costs scal gyolonhcetnosd onitubristdid State win Allofo orfilaC optnistfi rallevod ssiop er rds passe xefir da linoo ent prinosd ondn pen oni anyro s bened an ghih s) reru uct ns at anst retla n pen pe ded od equipm de de ventni beanirofilaCniylno Separate Effects optdAot ans rd easer oretemnosdn itio nd es;atstn-i whem ofs aresstoc ow nufactam ghehiebl becaanirofilaCniy itiond ge ges Inc depe co opt So cost (h of Possi onl ad certificatio Higher chan chan rketam prniemit erhg Hi andast rketamowt of Allowing of sdradna a;i woh(s gye sts leral stater and Set St possible ratstgnic con e-clhi ; ve gye sm toe du othe ies rofsstoc toai onali Outcomes Nat Californniy statesre ducto rds; pr all oth certificatio onom to rce prinos e;clhievr ratstgnic and ec rketsamowt aril standa nd pe costsn Californ omfr cter -souel pe and, of ctio scale prim de rketam onitubristdid Possible of erentff effectsre costs prinosd stri ond lingo odu on of s)
|
From page 153... ...
153 s sts nge co rehto larger cha of allt to of nttexe noh because oug effectsre the ent alth illov to oympl costs, spelb costs creaseni em rd standard entm erhghid ssiop ffectse -standa cter anst states; ent stri nefi enforce for be uniform ploym erhg -intpoyb Higher Em from market Hi idap states nis ehtnognid ethd an effect ntem pen llufhguohtal,stfi ani rehtoot orfilaC de ne s, ber byd effectsre costs oypl arear pai illov entm enforce emlanogireebl heotd standard,eth,e noi spel typ ducto anani rceu prfo ghehidnas notyelkil sibsop cost Higher Possi orfilaC ile-sobom oni stoms catol erhg Hi cost rists;toom states ent ent nal tio oympl erall Enforcem Em effects Ov stribuid effects
|
From page 154... ...
154 State and Federal Standards for Mobile-Source Emissions might be affected by the stricter standards, depending on the mobile source and the pollutant. For example, air quality benefits might spill over into adjacent states, depending on wind patterns, such as ozonereduction policies that can affect air quality in parts of Arizona and Nevada and relocation of cleaner California units to neighboring states.
|
From page 155... ...
California standards as they evolve over
|
From page 156... ...
Opt-in Provision for Other States to Adopt California Standards The third column of Table 5-1 compares (1) the benefits and costs of allowing states to adopt (also called opt-in)
|
From page 157... ...
There is some evidence that allowing a separate standard in California and all states to opt-in might induce manufacturers to produce uniform products for the nation at the more stringent standard. For example, automobile manufacturers have stated their intention to certify all their vehicles according to the stricter California evaporative emissions standards rather than produce some vehicles certified according to federal standards and some certified according to California standards.
|
From page 158... ...
Nevertheless, the link of the regulatory change to air quality and to health is important and often gets lost in the regulatory analyses. One can argue that the goal of the emissions reductions targeted in a state implementation plan (SIP)
|
From page 159... ...
Several issues arise in the implementation of cost-effectiveness analysis. Looking only at the average costs and emissions reductions from a specific regulatory policy does not reveal whether that policy should be adopted.
|
From page 160... ...
First, it matters who is doing both the ex ante and ex post studies, since the biases discussed above can be inherent in both. Second, it is important to assess costs in combination with emissions reductions.
|
From page 161... ...
The magnitude of this behavioral change can be estimated to determine how much benefits would be reduced. Recent rules that treat fuels and engines as a system, such as the federal Tier 2/low sulfur standards discussed in the following chapter, add to the complexity of estimating impacts since such standards produce non-emissions benefits such as improved engine life, longer spark plug life, greater oil change intervals, and reduced maintenance.
|
From page 162... ...
Accounting for Uncertainty Estimating the future emissions reductions (or when possible, the benefits) and costs of a stricter standard are going to be highly uncertain.
|
From page 163... ...
Distributional Effects It is important to identify the groups who are likely to be affected by emissions reductions from a proposed standard and who are likely to bear those costs. The benefits and costs may differ across geographic areas within the region considering the standard or they may be distributed in other regions or throughout the country.
|
From page 164... ...
· Recognizing the needs of some states to adopt more stringent mobile-source emissions standards to help improve air quality, a desirable objective is to harmonize CARB's and EPA's certification procedures. Although meaningful differences in standards can be important in achieving clean air, superficial differences, in such areas as certification procedures, can be wasteful.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.