IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-98-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Behavioral Analysis of EPA's MOBILE Emission Factor Model

Author

Listed:
  • Harrington, Winston

    (Resources for the Future)

  • McConnell, Virginia

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Cannon, Matthew

Abstract

This paper examines the behavioral and stochastic aspects of modeling emission reductions from vehicle Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs. Forecasts of the potential emission reductions from such programs have been modeled by the use of the Environmental Protection Agency's MOBILE Model, EPA's computer model for estimating emission factors for mobile sources. We examine the structure of this Model and review the way behavior of drivers, mechanics and state regulatory authorities is incorporated in the current generation of the Model. We focus particularly on assumptions about vehicle repair under I/M, compliance with I/M requirements, and the impact of test measurement error on predicted I/M effectiveness. We also include some preliminary comparisons of the Model's outcomes to results of the I/M program in place in Arizona. Finally, we perform some sensitivity analyses to determine the most influential underlying parameters of the Model. We find that many of the assumptions of the I/M component of the Model are based on relatively small data sets on vehicle done in a laboratory setting, and that the output of the Model makes it difficult to compare the results against real world data from on-going state programs. In addition, the Model assumes that vehicles will either be repaired or receive a waiver. In the Arizona program there appears to be a third category of vehicles those which fail the test and do not receive passes. This share may be as high as a third of all failing vehicles. Vehicles which do not eventually pass the test would be treated in the Model as non-compliant. However, in current programs, states do not seem to be measuring and entering the compliance rate correctly. The paper also examines the evidence about whether emissions deteriorate over the life of vehicle in a grams per mile basis (as assumed by the Model) or a grams per gallon basis. It finds support for the argument that emissions deteriorate on a grams per gallon basis. We find through sensitivity analysis that the repair effectiveness assumed by the Model to occur in an IM240 test are much greater than for the idle test, and that identification rates and repair effectiveness vary a great deal according to the cutpoint. These results are based on small numbers of vehicle tests in a laboratory setting and could be compared to real world evidence. Examining costs and cost-effectiveness of variations in I/M programs is important for determining improvements in I/M programs. States may not have incentives to develop cost-effective programs based on current Model that forecast emission reduction "credits" that are overly optimistic.

Suggested Citation

  • Harrington, Winston & McConnell, Virginia & Cannon, Matthew, 1998. "A Behavioral Analysis of EPA's MOBILE Emission Factor Model," RFF Working Paper Series dp-98-47, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-98-47
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-98-47.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harrington, Winston, 1997. "Fuel Economy and Motor Vehicle Emissions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 240-252, July.
    2. Deakin, Elizabeth & Harvey, Greig & Pozdena, Randall & Yarema, Geoffrey, 1996. "Transportation Pricing Strategies for California: An Assessment of Congestion, Emissions, Energy. And Equity Impacts," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt723002kt, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Alberini, Anna & Harrington, Winston & McConnell, Virginia D., 1998. "Fleet Turnover and Old Car Scrap Policies," Discussion Papers 10897, Resources for the Future.
    4. Guensler, Randall, 1993. "Data Needs for Evolving Motor Vehicle Emission Modeling Approaches," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0vw2h4qf, University of California Transportation Center.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ando, Amy & Harrington, Winston & McConnell, Virginia, 1999. "Costs, Emissions Reductions and Vehicle Repair: Evidence from Arizona," RFF Working Paper Series dp-99-23-rev, Resources for the Future.
    2. Yaping Dong & Jinliang Xu & Xingliang Liu & Chao Gao & Han Ru & Zhihao Duan, 2019. "Carbon Emissions and Expressway Traffic Flow Patterns in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Mendoza, Daniel & Gurney, Kevin Robert & Geethakumar, Sarath & Chandrasekaran, Vandhana & Zhou, Yuyu & Razlivanov, Igor, 2013. "Implications of uncertainty on regional CO2 mitigation policies for the U.S. onroad sector based on a high-resolution emissions estimate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 386-395.
    4. Krupnick, Alan J. & McConnell, Virginia D. & Austin, David H. & Cannon, Matthew & Stoessell, Terrell & Morton, Brian, 1998. "The Chesapeake Bay and the Control of NOx Emissions: A Policy Analysis," Discussion Papers 10576, Resources for the Future.
    5. Mérel, Pierre & Smith, Aaron & Williams, Jeffrey & Wimberger, Emily, 2014. "Cars on crutches: How much abatement do smog check repairs actually provide?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 371-395.
    6. Wu, Jishi & Jia, Peng & Feng, Tao & Li, Haijiang & Kuang, Haibo & Zhang, Junyi, 2023. "Uncovering the spatiotemporal impacts of built environment on traffic carbon emissions using multi-source big data," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Timilsina, Govinda R. & Dulal, Hari B., 2009. "A review of regulatory instruments to control environmental externalities from the transport sector," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4867, The World Bank.
    2. Wenjia Zhang & Ming Zhang, 2018. "Incorporating land use and pricing policies for reducing car dependence: Analytical framework and empirical evidence," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(13), pages 3012-3033, October.
    3. West, Sarah E., 2004. "Distributional effects of alternative vehicle pollution control policies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 735-757, March.
    4. Nuworsoo, Cornelius & Golub, Aaron & Deakin, Elizabeth, 2009. "Analyzing equity impacts of transit fare changes: Case study of Alameda-Contra Costa Transit, California," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 360-368, November.
    5. Austin, David & Dinan, Terry, 2005. "Clearing the air: The costs and consequences of higher CAFE standards and increased gasoline taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 562-582, November.
    6. Matthew Beck & John Rose & David Hensher, 2011. "Behavioural responses to vehicle emissions charging," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(3), pages 445-463, May.
    7. Ian W. H. Parry & Margaret Walls & Winston Harrington, 2007. "Automobile Externalities and Policies," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 45(2), pages 373-399, June.
    8. Parry, Ian W.H. & Fischer, Carolyn & Harrington, Winston, 2004. "Should Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Be Tightened?," Discussion Papers 10605, Resources for the Future.
    9. Albert, Gila & Glanzer, Yaniv, 2014. "The usefulness of pollution examinations of on-road vehicles—The case of Jerusalem," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 100-104.
    10. Palmer, Karen & Macauley, Molly & Shih, Jhih-Shyang & Cline, Sarah & Holsinger, Heather, 2001. "Modeling the Costs and Environmental Benefits of Disposal Options for End-of-Life Electronic Equipment: The Case of Used Computer Monitors," RFF Working Paper Series dp-01-27, Resources for the Future.
    11. Kay, Andrew I. & Noland, Robert B. & Rodier, Caroline J., 2014. "Achieving reductions in greenhouse gases in the US road transportation sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 536-545.
    12. Heike Link, 2007. "Acceptability of the German Charging Scheme for Heavy Goods Vehicles: Empirical Evidence from a Freight Company Survey," Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(2), pages 141-158, May.
    13. Eskeland, Gunnar S., 2000. "Environmental protection and optimal taxation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2510, The World Bank.
    14. Fullerton, Don & West, Sarah E., 2002. "Can Taxes on Cars and on Gasoline Mimic an Unavailable Tax on Emissions?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 135-157, January.
    15. Juliet Namukasa & Sheila Namagembe & Faridah Nakayima, 2020. "Fuel Efficiency Vehicle Adoption and Carbon Emissions in a Country Context," International Journal of Global Sustainability, Macrothink Institute, vol. 4(1), pages 1-21, December.
    16. Montag, Josef, 2015. "The simple economics of motor vehicle pollution: A case for fuel tax," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 138-149.
    17. Parry, Ian W.H. & Timilsina, Govinda R., 2009. "Pricing externalities from passenger transportation in Mexico city," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5071, The World Bank.
    18. Lawrence Goulder & Mark Jacobsen & Arthur van Benthem, "undated". "Unintended Consequences from Nested State & Federal Regulations: The Case of the Pavley Greenhouse-Gas-per-Mile Limits," Discussion Papers 08-049, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    19. Steinsland, Christian & Fridstrøm, Lasse & Madslien, Anne & Minken, Harald, 2018. "The climate, economic and equity effects of fuel tax, road toll and commuter tax credit," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 225-241.
    20. Harrington, Winston & McConnell, Virginia D., 1999. "Coase and Car Repair: Who Should Be Responsible for Emissions of Vehicles in Use?," Discussion Papers 10911, Resources for the Future.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-98-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.