Flawed analyses of U.S. auto fuel economy standards

Bento, Antonio M.; Gillingham, Kenneth; Jacobsen, Mark R.; Knittel, Christopher R.; Leard, Benjamin; Linn, Joshua; McConnell, Virginia; Rapson, David; Sallee, James M.; Benthem, Arthur van; Whitefoot, Kate S.

doi:10.1126/science.aav1458

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in 2018, the Trump administration announced a new policy shift, abandoning the standards and freezing them to the 2020 values, arguing they were too high and expensive (Walsh, 2018). US EPA announced a new rule named "Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient" (SAFE) for the years 2021-2025, which was criticized by a group of scientists (Bento, et al, 2018). In order to match this goal, the subsequent Mexican regulation has to be more solid and set higher thresholds.…”

Section: The Case Of Mexicomentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Local Work for the Global Best: A Comparative Study of Vehicle Efficiency Standards Implementation in China and Mexico

Mendoza

Cao

2020

Sustainability Standards and Global Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Case Of Mexicomentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the Local Work for the Global Best: A Comparative Study of Vehicle Efficiency Standards Implementation in China and Mexico

Mendoza

Cao

2020

Sustainability Standards and Global Governance

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In this case, significant differences in the analyses include the Trump administration's approach of increasing compliance costs by a factor of seven, an unexplained shrinkage of the overall vehicle fleet by six million cars, and continued changes to the SCC. Although it is unclear exactly what drives some of the differences in results between the Obama and Trump administrations' analyses, the Trump administration's analysis appears problematic and inconsistent with basic economic theory and empirical studies (Bento et al 2018).…”

Section: Fuel Economy Standardsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In each case, the Trump administration's economic analysis diminishes public benefits in ways that support an agenda of deregulation. In response, environmental economists have argued that the analytical assumptions and methods that were used are not consistent with best practices in the field of environmental economics (e.g., Boyle, Kotchen, and Smith 2017;Krupnick and Keyes 2017;Bento et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy Brief—The Need for More (Not Less) External Review of Economic Analysis at the U.S. EPA

Boyle

Kotchen

2019

Review of Environmental Economics and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made significant changes to the way it conducts economic analyses of regulatory actions. Changes in the assumptions and methods used in regulatory impact analyses (RIAs) have produced fundamentally different conclusions about the economic benefits and costs of significant regulations. At the same time, the EPA has eliminated its Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC), which had provided external review of key inputs to the agency’s benefit–cost analyses, such as the value of a statistical life. This article describes the history and activities of the EEAC to increase understanding of the role it served and what has been lost by eliminating it. In addition, we discuss our own experience as recent EEAC members. We also present examples of the very different results produced by the Obama and Trump administrations’ economic analyses of the same EPA rules to illustrate why external review is so important for ensuring that economic analyses are credible, robust, and not influenced by political agendas.

show abstract

“…These margins play a role in the current policy debate in the US as discussed inBento, Gillingham, Jacobsen, Knittel, Leard, Linn, McConnell, Rapson, Sallee, van Benthem, and Whitefoot (2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Abatement Strategies and the Cost of Environmental Regulation: Emission Standards on the European Car Market

Reynaert

2020

The Review of Economic Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the introduction of an EU-wide emission standard on the automobile market. Using panel data from 1998 to 2011, I find that firms decreased emission ratings by 14%. Firms use technology adoption and gaming of emission tests to decrease emissions, rather than shifting the sales mix or downsizing. I find that the standard missed its emission target, and from estimating a structural model, I find that the standard was not welfare improving. The political environment in the EU shaped the design and weak enforcement and resulted in firms’ choices for abatement by technology adoption and gaming.

show abstract

Flawed analyses of U.S. auto fuel economy standards

Abstract: A 2018 analysis discarded at least $112 billion in benefits

Cited by 28 publications

References 12 publications

Making the Local Work for the Global Best: A Comparative Study of Vehicle Efficiency Standards Implementation in China and Mexico

Making the Local Work for the Global Best: A Comparative Study of Vehicle Efficiency Standards Implementation in China and Mexico

Policy Brief—The Need for More (Not Less) External Review of Economic Analysis at the U.S. EPA

Abatement Strategies and the Cost of Environmental Regulation: Emission Standards on the European Car Market

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About