Regulate the Results, Not the Technology
by Eric Richard
One of the threads we’ve seen a couple of times recently has been the notion that regulators should focus on setting specific performance targets through regulations rather than regulating specific implementations.
For example a few months ago, we heard of plans for various governments to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs, and then only weeks later the incandescent lightbulb manufacturers announced plans to produce super-efficient lightbulbs that would be better than existing CFLs.
If this really is the case, there is no reason to ban incandescents. The ban should really be based around the performance of the bulbs. Ban any bulb that takes requires more than a certain number of watts to produce a certain number of lumens. Then, let the innovators figure out which technologies make the most sense.
Anyway, I saw an interesting article recently that made me think of this debate again.
Specifically, the article deals with the types of cars that are allowed to use HOV lanes.
As you probably know, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (more commonly known as carpool lanes) are generally set up to encourage people to behave in ways that reduce traffic by carpooling.
It turns out that in 2005, Congress modified this definition slightly when they passed the “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users Act.”
(Note the acronym: SAFETEA. I really wonder how long they spend coming up with cute acronyms like this!)
In this act, they recognized that reductions in pollution could also be encouraged through the HOV lane and, to that end, they added exemptions to HOV lane usage for hybrid vehicles.
This was designed as a “perk” to encourage drivers to consider purchasing hybrid vehicles.
If you look at most of the press coverage of this proposed change, it tends to focus on making the regulations stricter to ensure that only truly fuel efficient cars could use the HOV lanes:
“For the driver of a hybrid to qualify for HOV lanes during peak time, hybrid vehicles would need to achieve 25 percent higher combined fuel efficiency for city and highway driving compared with similar gasoline-fueled vehicles.”
At first blush, this seemed totally reasonable and would close a previously existing loophole. Specifically, just because a car is a hybrid doesn’t necessarily mean that it meets the fuel efficiency standards that would justify the use of the HOV lane.
For example, according to the article above, “Some of the vehicles that would not qualify include the luxury Lexus GS450h Hybrid, DaimlerChrysler AG’s Dodge Ram Hybrid and General Motors Corp.’s Saturn Vue Greenline Hybrid.”
This seemed perfectly reasonable to me. You shouldn’t just get a free pass just because you have a hybrid; you should have to have reasonable fuel efficiency.
But, then, as I looked deeper, I saw something a little silly.
According to the EPA’s regulatory annoucement about the new proposal, in order for cars to qualify they would need to “meet the specifications for both low emission and energy-efficient”. Ok, that seems reasonable. But, what do each of those things mean?
Again, according to the EPA, to be considered “low emission”, a vehicle would “have to be certified to either the federal Tier 2 bin 5 (or cleaner) or California LEV II emission”. Fine. That seems totally reasonable.
And do be considered “energy efficient” a vehicle would have to be:
- “A dedicated alternative fuel vehicle, or
- A hybrid vehicle achieving 50 percent or better in-city fuel economy or 25 percent or better in combined city/highway fuel economy compared to a similar gasoline fueled vehicle.”
Here’s where I think they went wrong.
Energy efficient is energy efficient, regardless of how you achieve it. Why stipulate that the vehicle has to be a hybrid or other alternative fuel vehicle?
There are several 100% gasoline fueled cars that get close to 40 mpg today. Small cars like the Honda Civic, Mini Cooper, Kia Rio, and Hyundai Accent all get around 40 mpg on the highway. And you have new cars like the smart fortwo that is expected to get over 40 mpg when it is available in the U.S.
So, why limit this to hybrids and other alternative fuel cars? It seems like the performance standard in the regulation is perfectly fine. In fact, the way the regulation is currently stated, as the overall efficiency of cars goes up, the bar will get higher and higher for cars that meet this threshold which seems like just what you’d want.
But, that one little glitch about specifying the technology seems like its going down the wrong road. As much as I love my hybrid, there’s nothing inherently good about a hybrid. If a non-hybrid can produce the same emissions and the same fuel efficiency, good for it!
Seems like they were so close to getting this right, but took one wrong turn at the end.
Related Links
- The Department of Transportation has a section-by-section analysis of the existing bill.
- The EPA has a press release on the new proposal.
on June 1st, 2007 at 1:31 am
Very interesting article. Funny how people tend to believe what is written than what actual reality.
on June 3rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Just following on to this entry.
GreenerCars.com puts out an annual list of the Year’s Top-Rated Models in Each Vehicle Class by looking at the environmental impact of the cars.
I thought I’d take a look at these ratings to see how both hybrid and non-hybrid cars compared to see whether my theory above was correct.
As an example, I looked at the Toyota Highlander Hybrid. According to the new regulation, this car meets the HOV requirements. So, if you look it up on the site (it is a Mid-Size SUV), you can see that it gets 32 mpg in the city, 27 mpg on the highway, and has a “Green Score” of 39.
If you then look at the Subcompact Cars, you will see that every single subcompact car has a better “Green Score”, regardless of whether it is a hybrid or not.
So, it seems a little bit silly that a car like the Toyota Yaris, which gets better scores across the board than the Highlander, wouldn’t quality for the HOV lane access, when the Highlander would.
It really seems like the right thing is to establish some metric (like this Green Score) and say, “If you pass this level, you qualify. If you don’t, you don’t.”