Newly proposed auto standards hold promise

The Biden Administration is clearly making good on its pledge to revisit the automobile GHG emission standards weakened by the previous administration. The notice of proposed rulemaking issued by EPA on August 5, 2021 aims to cut model year 2026 car and light truck GHG emission rates 17% compared to the recent level, from 205 grams/mile (g/mi) in 2020 to a nominal target of 171 g/mi in 2026. 

The White House announcement just prior to the EPA proposal also states an ambitious goal for EVs to comprise half of U.S. vehicle sales in 2030. This non-binding target would include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) as well as pure zero-emission vehicles such as battery electric and fuel cell cars. 

Fleetwide efficiency gains more important than electric cars over the next decade

For at least the next decade, the overall fuel economy of the entire car and light truck fleet will be more crucial for climate protection than the number of electric vehicles sold. That's the message of my recent online article in Scientific American: "Want Greener Cars? Focus on Fuel Efficiency." Read the discussion there (the article was first published in The Conversation under the title "To make the US auto fleet greener, increasing fuel efficiency matters more than selling electric vehicles").   

Personal trucks widen emissions gap over EVs

Excess carbon dioxide emissions from the rising popularity of light trucks, such as the Ram pickup, swamp many times over the potential carbon savings from increased sales of EVs, such as the Tesla Model 3, to date.  

Last fall, I posted an analysis showing that, even as electric vehicle sales had grown significantly over the past several years, the broader market shift to personal trucks (mainly SUVs and pickups) has overwhelmed the potential CO2 reductions from EV use by more than a factor of four. With the new EPA data now released, this ratio has increased to a factor of 5.6, as shown in the chart below. 

Light trucks overwhelm EVs' carbon-cutting benefits to date

Electric vehicle sales have grown rapidly over the past several years. In 2012, only about 53,000 EVs were sold in the United States, counting both battery electric and plug-in hybrid models. By 2018, the annual tally of new EVs sold in the United States reached 361,000. It then tapered to 327,000 in 2019, the last full year of data before the 2020 pandemic. The vast majority of EVs are Teslas, with the big jump in 2018 due to the introduction of the Tesla Model 3. With overall light vehicle sales on the order of 17 million per year (pre-pandemic), EVs comprised about 2% of the U.S. market as of 2019.

Earth Day and auto efficiency

On Monday March 9, 2020, just before the coronavirus lockdown, I hosted a pre-Earth-Day teach-in on auto efficiency. It was part of the commererative week of action that the University of Michigan had planned to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970. 

Can the Trump administration pull off a clean car deal after all?

Regulations have long been a bone of contention between automakers and green groups, with policymakers caught in the middle. The disagreements have grown sharper than ever over the past two years, culminating in an August proposal from the Trump administration. That plan detailed a preferred option of freezing car and light truck Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards after 2020.

In response -- and they were indeed prepared for this worst-case scenario -- the State of California and its allies have girded for legal battle. They filled the docket with comments and extensive supporting analysis designed to fight the administration's crippled standards in court. On the other side, automakers -- who had prompted the administration to revise the regulations -- hailed the Trump agencies regulatory reform process even though they said it weakened the rules even more than they wanted. At that juncture, it seemed like years of litigation might be inevitable.

Nevertheless, a look at the formal comments filed reveals the makings of a compromise peeking through the otherwise disparate views. Recent news stories report that serious negotiations between California and the Trump administration seem to be underway. My recent Axios piece muses about how a compromise on car standards could be in sight.

Pondering the future of the car with the planet in mind

Historical vehicles on display at General Motors Factory One (left to right): Flint Road Cart (1886),
Buick Model C (1905) and Chevrolet Classic Six (1913)  [photo: Jason Robinson, courtesy of General Motors]

This year, the Society of Environmental Journalists' (SEJ) Annual Conference was held in Flint, Michigan. The city has been in the news recently because of its toxic, lead-contaminated tap water, a public health crisis brought on by negligence and indifference at all levels of government. Clean water was a major theme of the event, which included moving presentations by members of the community, activists and researchers involved in the crisis.

Historically, however, Flint is one of the cities that gave birth to the automobile. William Durant, a key co-founder of General Motors, and his partner Josiah Dort opened a factory for making horse-drawn carriages there in 1886. That building subsequently became an early factory for Durant's car company before falling into disuse in 1924. Five years ago, General Motors purchased the building and named it Factory One, turning the refurbished structure into a museum and event space.

This location served as a fitting venue for an evening plenary on the Future of Cars held on October 3, 2018, the first day of the SEJ conference. Moderated by Jim Motavalli, the panel included Michelle Krebs, a leading automotive analyst, Mike Ableson, a GM vice president involved in the company's electric vehicle efforts, and myself.

Reconsidering bioenergy

Accelerated restoration in progress at the Malheur National Forest, Oregon  [photo: U.S. Forest Service] 

Protecting the Earth's climate takes on greater urgency every day. The vast majority of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other climate-wrecking greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions comes from the unmitigated use of fossil fuels. But that doesn't mean that every form of alternative energy is helpful for the planet. Case in point: bioenergy, such as liquid biofuels to replace oil or forest products to replace coal.

Indeed, using biomass for energy at large scales does not belong on the short list of actions to take for climate protection. This is the conclusion of a commentary by Bill Schlesinger and myself just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Given the real-world limitations of not only technology but also land-use governance, we argue that the priority policymakers have given to promoting bioenergy is profoundly misplaced.

No justification for weaker CAFE standards

Interior view of the 2019 Ford F-150 Limited edition pickup truck. Such luxurious features in what were once utilitarian vehicles showcase automakers' impressive design and technology capabilities. The key policy question is how well these capabilities can be harnessed to improve fuel economy rather than offering ever more niceties at the expense of better protecting the environment. [photo: Ford Motor Company media] 

This week the administration is holding public hearings on their proposal to weaken Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards after 2020. What follows is the comment I prepared for the hearing being held today in Dearborn, Michigan. 

Comment on CAFE and GHG Standards Proposed Rule
for MY 2021-2026

John M. DeCicco, Ph.D.
University of Michigan Energy Institute*

Thank you for the opportunity to present this comment today.

Having reviewed the proposed rule, I find that it fails to scientifically or economically justify freezing the standards for model years 2021 through 2026. My assessments show that the greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards for those years remain sound.

My overarching conclusion is that there is no justification for changing the standards.

The one new development with any significance is that fuel prices are lower now than projected. However, this does not justify weakening the standards. Lower prices are all the more reason why fuel economy and emission standards should remain untouched.

The precarious state of fuel economy policy

Rated at 25 mpg, the Toyota RAV4 is a good example of the average new personal vehicle now being
sold in the United States, emitting 5.2 metric tons of CO2 per year over 15,000 miles of driving. 

Any day now, the Trump Administration will formally propose its revisions to the coordinated program of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for cars and light trucks. EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has determined that the existing standards, set in GHG terms by the previous administration for model years 2021-25, are too tough. Everyone expects that the proposal will weaken the regulations; the question is by how much.

As a long-time analyst of automotive fuel economy policy, over the past few weeks I've written several pieces providing perspectives on the issue as linked here.

Even though it's not a good reason to weaken the standards, automakers do have a valid concern about low consumer interest in ever-higher fuel economy. The tension between what consumers desire and the need to cut GHG emissions is a problem to take seriously and address creatively. This challenge is discussed in my recent piece "Why aren't automakers connecting better with green-minded consumers?" in Automotive News.

A broader look at the regulatory dispute is given the piece, "After Years of Green Promises, Automakers Renege on Emissions Standards," published last week by Yale Environment 360. Hooking to visionary-sounding statements by GM's chief executive, it highlights the contrast between the automaker's promise of technological solutions and the efforts to fight the policies needed to bring such solutions to fruition. That's an old story in the long-running debates about clean cars. However, with automakers now able to exploit the empowered political hostility to the environment that they (and some other industries) cultivated over the years, progress may soon grind to a halt. My comments echo those of others who point out California's crucial leverage on the issue.

A concise take on this very point is given by my Axios Expert Voices piece, "Automakers struggle to head off the California–EPA legal battle," published earlier last week.

A couple of months back, shortly after Administrator Pruitt issued his notice about the process to revisit the CAFE and GHG emissions standards, I argued that "Stronger fuel standards make sense, even when gas prices are low" in The Conversation (and also republished by Salon and other outlets).

Breaking down biofuels analysis

Debates about the merits of biofuels have gone on for at least a generation. Over time, one might think that the accumulation of data would resolve key issues, especially those about biofuels and global warming. Nevertheless, the arguments not only persist but have become even more heated.

What has taken things to a new level of contention is that some researchers (myself included) are now rethinking the heart of the matter, namely, the belief that biofuels are inherently carbon neutral. This is the assumption that the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned does not lead to a net increase in emissions because the carbon in the biofuel is recycled during feedstock growth. My new paper, "Methodological issues regarding biofuels and carbon uptake" published in the journal Sustainability, breaks this aspect of the debate down to its bare essentials.

Stronger fuel standards make sense, even when gas prices are low

The current Republican administration is taking steps to weaken EPA's greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for cars and light trucks. One of the stated reasons is that lower fuel prices make it more difficult for automakers to comply with the regulations. However, car companies are already well on the way to re-engineering their vehicles to cut emissions through higher fuel economy. Fuel prices are a fickle friend when it comes to the crucial long-term quest to cut climate-disrupting GHG emissions. So that's all the more reason to keep strong standards in place, as explained in this recent piece published on The Conversation. 

Biofuels vs. Biodiversity and the Need to Think Beyond Carbon Neutral

Seminar given at the University of Michigan, Thursday, February 8, 2018, as part of the 2016-2018 "Beyond Carbon Neutral" seminar series.

Download the presentation slides [PDF]

ABSTRACT

Just over a decade ago, policymakers gave a big boost to biofuels through the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and similar policies. These policies included sustainability provisions for protecting sensitive lands; the intent was to spur the production of advanced biofuels that would be sustainable in many ways including low CO2 emissions. Now, new studies appear each year revealing the destruction of diverse habitats as biofuel production amplifies the global demand for land. There have also been multiple bankruptcies of highly-subsidized advanced biofuel operations. What went wrong and how can we find a better path forward?

Carbon balance effects of biofuel expansion

The 4th biennial America's Grasslands Conference organized by the National Wildlife Federation was held in Fort Worth, Texas, on 14-16 November 2017. What follows is the narrative with key slides from my presentation in the session on "The Ethanol Mandate as a Driver of Land Conversion and Carbon Emissions." 

I imagine that you have often heard that ethanol and other biofuels are "clean and green" compared to ordinary gasoline. Even if not perfect, aren't biofuels better than petroleum because they recycle carbon from the atmosphere instead of getting it from under the ground? That makes them inherently carbon neutral, many people believe.

Unfortunately, that belief is quite misleading. Take, for instance, the claim that corn ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 43% compared to gasoline, as given by a recent USDA study (which is critiqued here). That value is based on computer modeling and the assumption that biofuels fully recycle carbon is hard-coded into the model. However, when using field data to evaluate how much CO2 is actually recycled, it turns out that such modeling is off base, and not by just a small amount. In fact, biofuels fall so far short of being truly carbon neutral that they cause higher rather than lower CO2 emissions than petroleum fuels.

Carbon taxes and the affordability of gasoline

Although new taxes can seem like a third rail in American politics, taxing carbon seems to be an approach that is slowly gaining ground in public discussions of ways to tackle global warming.

We recently explored what a carbon tax would mean for how U.S. consumers feel about the affordability of gasoline. It turns out that for over 90% of Americans, a $40 per ton carbon tax -- which translates to an extra 36 cents per gallon -- would still leave them a gasoline price range that they consider affordable.

Of course, consumers' views on the issue depend on their household incomes, with lower income households expressing a lower price threshold for "pain at the pump," so to speak.

Further details on these survey findings can be found in the article on "A carbon tax: how much would be too much?" at the University of Michigan Energy Survey website, where the full report is also posted.

A new and deeper wrinkle in the biofuel debate

Two short articles just published by the journal Climatic Change highlight the divide in scientific thinking about the effect of biofuels on CO2 emissions. A commentary by Robb De Kleine and colleagues at Ford Motor Company criticizes a paper on the topic published last year by myself and colleagues at the University of Michigan. My response to their commentary explains why I believe that our approach is correct, in contrast to the established lifecycle analysis method that our critics say is the best way to address the question.

Cropland adjoining patches of forest. All arable land
removes carbon from the atmosphere at varying rates. 

This quarrel reflects a new stage in the long-running debate because it does not involve disputes about net energy use or even the food-versus-fuel and land-use change issues raised over the past decade. It is instead a disagreement about the core assumptions to use when examining the question, particularly whether or not biofuels should be treated as inherently carbon neutral. That's the assumption that the CO2 emitted when biofuels are burned does not count because it is biogenic, i.e., newly removed from the atmosphere when feedstocks are grown. My work challenges this assumption, showing that it only holds under certain conditions. De Kleine and colleagues defend the assumption, arguing that it is true unconditionally.

The disagreement is not merely academic. Because new oil production technologies have expanded the supply of economically attractive fossil-based liquid fuels, the business case for biofuels rests increasingly on their value for mitigating CO2 emissions. The stakes are high for both the biofuels industry and for policies to address global warming.

Biofuel Research vs. Mandates: House Science Committee Hearing

John DeCicco speaking before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, where the Subcommittees on the Environment and on Energy held a joint hearing entitled "Examining Advancements in Biofuels: Balancing Federal Research and Market Innovation" on Tuesday, July 25, 2017. What follows is the statement delivered at the hearing. 

I wish to thank the chairs, ranking members and other members of the Committee and Subcommittees for the opportunity to testify.

The question being addressed today, that of the right balance between fundamental scientific research and government intervention in the marketplace, is crucially important. The focus on biofuels is telling because it involves so many aspects of the question. Indeed, federal biofuels policy provides a morality tale of how things go wrong when the right balance is not maintained.

Before delving into the problems, however, I want to emphasize the importance of maintaining a robust federal investment in research across all fields of study. Funding for science is crucial to maintain American leadership and foster the innovation that leads to high-quality job growth. Federal support for university research is especially crucial for training a new generation of Americans who can fill those jobs. 

Deceptive jobs rhetoric and auto regulation

Last week, President Trump worked long-time big-business lobbying scripts about "job-killing regulations" into his populist speech here in Michigan. The setting was the Willow Run facility in Ypsilanti and the props included a crowd of Chrysler, Ford and General Motors auto workers bussed in by the former Big Three to cheer for the Donald.

In reality, environmental regulations do not kill jobs. Read a rebuttal to the speech in my article on the "The ‘Job-Killing’ Fiction Behind Trump’s Retreat on Fuel Economy Standards" at Yale's e360 online magazine.

A to-the-point radio interview on biofuels and climate

As a guest yesterday on the WEMU (89.1 FM from Eastern Michigan University) "Issues of the Environment" segment, I answered host David Fair's questions about how our recent work differed from the established lifecycle analysis methods used to analyze the greenhouse gas emissions impacts of biofuels.

The resulting interview has great questions from David and clear explanations from myself about why the results of government modeling of the issue are misleading and why, as far as climate is concerned, it's better to repeal biofuel policies and focus on reforestation and other ways to remove carbon from the air and sequester it on land.

Morning Edition: Issues of the Environment 

U-M Researcher Calls For End To Current Biofuel Policy In The U.S.

http://wemu.org/post/issues-environment-u-m-researcher-calls-end-current-biofuel-policy-us

By DAVID FAIR • WEDS 01 FEB 2017

In August of 2016,  University of Michigan Energy Institute scientists, led by John DeCicco, released an 8-year study.  It estimated powering an American vehicle with ethanol made from corn increased carbon pollution more than using gasoline.  In this week's "Issues of the Environment,” David Fair talks with Professor DeCicco about the findings and what it means to future policy. 

IMAGE CREDIT: DREW FROM ZHRODAGUE / FLICKR.COM

Listen Here [10:09 mp3 link] 

Separating fact from fiction in the newest U.S. federal ethanol study

Debates about the merits of biofuels have been going on for at least a generation. My favorite clip from the early, oil-crisis era ethanol push was Nicholas Wade’s article, "Oil pinch stirs dreams of moonshine travel," published by Science in June 1979. Save for one topic, the terms of the debate — the costs of producing biofuels, whether ethanol took more energy to make than it delivered, the extent to which it really helps energy security, the hope for cellulosic biofuels and the food-versus-fuel dilemma — were the same nearly forty years ago as they are today.

Global warming is the topic not on the table then that is so important now. The effect of biofuels on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is the focus of many recent studies. To compare fuels according to their GHG impact, policymakers have adopted a form of computer modeling known as lifecycle analysis (LCA). A new report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the latest LCA study to claim significant GHG reductions from the use of corn-based ethanol, concluding that it has net GHG emissions 43 percent lower than those of petroleum gasoline. Those results are similar to the findings of lifecycle modeling from Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), on which this latest USDA study heavily relies.

My own work has long come to an opposite conclusion. It shows that the use of biofuels (both ethanol and biodiesel) makes GHG emissions worse that they would otherwise be. This finding is not based on computer modeling, but relies instead on field data to assess the real-world CO2 flows involved when substituting biofuel for fossil fuel.