HybridBlog

Outside-The-Box Incentive Idea in Bellmont

On the incentives front, here’s something interesting.  I just found this proposed perk in Belmont, California.  It seems as a residual of an effort to get a smoking ban in public places there, the idea of cutting local air pollution has turned into an idea to offer a $500 discount on city services (public swimming pools, ice skating classes, rock climbing permits, etc.).

Provided they once again use performance standards (see my blog below for more on that one), on smog forming and global warming emissions (perhaps hybrid vehicles getting at least 30 mpg combined and rating AT-PZEV on the California smog-forming emissions scale, just to throw out an idea), the idea is particularly intriguing to me because, while it may cost the county money in the short run, it uses the hybrid incentive to promote city services which may end up raising more attention and revenues for those services.  This is one of the first incentives I’ve seen out there that could really be a winner for the environment, consumers, and the government.  Outside-the-box thinking worthy of some thought on the state and federal level, as well as the local.

Posted by: ScottN

Hybrid Incentives Must Set a “Standard”

As you know, our intrepid Program Assistant Lindsay Vidal does a remarkable job sifting through newspapers and legislative indexes all over the country trying to keep our ever-expanding list of hybrid incentives as up-to-date as possible. One incentive we are about to add is the recently enacted Illinois hybrid rebate program initiated by State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias.

The way the program works is pretty interesting. The state has ponied-up $2 million to give $1,000 rebates on hybrids if you use a participating financial institution for a car loan. The bank that does your loan will give you the rebate. What is also interesting here is this is the first incentive I have ever seen that actually allows the rebate to extend to the purchase of a used hybrid (with less than 7,500 miles on it).

But here’s where we at UCS run into an issue with this type of incentive. First, it’s a flat $1,000 for any qualifying vehicle. Second, the qualifying vehicles are pretty much anything that calls itself a hybrid. So, amazingly enough, hollow hybrids like the GMC Sierra and Chevy Silverado “hybrid” pickups, and muscle hybrids like the Honda Accord Hybrid and Lexus GS 450h, will get buyers the same taxpayer money as buying a Prius, Escape Hybrid, or Civic Hybrid.

This incentive lacks any standard whatsoever. And standards make all the difference between policies that can push automakers and consumers into providing and purchasing better choices, and policies that just “doing something” to try and be more environmentally sensitive (or at least appear that way). Simply put, policies without standards are usually a one-way ticket to ineffectiveness.

This is why we worked hard with Congress to ensure that the federal advanced vehicle tax credit had both performance-based credits and a baseline emission standard. The both performance-based credits are based on the fuel economy improvements of the hybrid technology as compared to conventional vehicles in its class. The baseline smog forming emission standard is so that some hybrid and diesel vehicles that traded fuel economy for smog would not be eligible. Those standards have helped push consumers to cleaner cars, and make a statement to automakers that trading fuel economy for smog was not going to pass muster.

So if your county, city, or state is considering trying to be more green with a hybrid perk of its own—be it a sales tax exemption, free parking, or a rebate—be sure to push your decision maker into supporting incentives that don’t just reward the hybrid name, but give credit for how that technology is actually used.

Posted by: ScottN

Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and . . . Hybrids?

Hi folks, ScottN back from vacation following my beloved New York Mets to Denver, and just had to do a quick blog on the baseball/hybrid convergence at this year’s All-Star Game (unfortunately won by the AL again . . . but that’s another blog entirely).

Chevrolet has been the “official sponsor” of Major League Baseball for some time, which you know very well if you watch Saturday baseball on Fox—where you are serenaded ad nauseum by John Mellencamp’s “This Is Our Country” while being shown how patriotic it is to drive gas-guzzling SUVs. This isn’t surprising considering how advertisers tend to label the typical sports-watching demographic.

What was surprising to me was that GM decided that for its central All-Star Game advertising device—giving a Chevy vehicle away to the winner of the game’s MVP award—it would unveil the Tahoe Hybrid to the nation. Now, yes, it’s a muscle hybrid, but to see GM preaching something fuel economy-related during a key moment in our national pastime is, to me, truly an expression (or in GM’s case, a reluctant admission) that there has been a cultural shift in our country when it comes to fuel economy. 

Okay, also have to point out the irony of the Tahoe Hybrid being won by Ichiro Suzuki, Major League Baseball’s most popular Japanese import. A related post on Metsblog.com might show the kind of stigma GM is going to have to overcome to give its hybrids mass appeal:

[Ichiro] was all dressed up after the game to accept his mvp award in the form of a hybrid chevy tahoe...a hybrid tahoe, isn't that like jumbo shrimp...

Not only did GM use the All-Star Game to trumpet the Tahoe Hybrid, but to also roll out its Malibu hollow hybrid as well. Much like the Saturn Greenline Aura and Vue models, the new Malibu represents the kind of solid conventional technology improvements we would laud if applied throughout the Malibu fleet rather than packaged as a limited-production “hybrid”—something automakers will have to do if we get real improvements in fuel economy standards out of the Energy Bill.

Have a great weekend, and, oh, I can’t help myself…LET’S GO METS!

Posted by: ScottN

Big Rig Fuel Economy Goes Global

Bonjour everyone!  Don Anair (a.k.a. “Sharkey”) here, back from a long blog break.

With Congress debating fuel economy standard improvements for passenger vehicles, it seems an appropriate time to look at other modes of transportation that use billions of gallons of oil annually and contribute significantly to global warming.  How about freight trucking?  This is a sector that has no existing fuel economy standards but could benefit significantly from fuel efficiency improvements given the tens of thousands of miles each truck travels every year.  Encouragingly, the energy bill adopted in the Senate not only calls for improving passenger vehicle fuel economy to 35 mpg, but calls for the development of fuel economy test procedures for medium and heavy-duty trucks and opens the door for fuel economy regulations down the road.

I recently attended the Heavy-Duty Fuel Efficiency workshop in Paris, where the topic of discussion was fuel economy regulations for commercial trucks. Policy makers, manufacturers, operators, academics, regulators, and NGOs from around the globe including Europe, the U.S., India, Japan, and others came together to discuss the potential of technologies and policies to improve big rig fuel economy.  A premise for the discussion was posed– “Is it true that sensitivity to fuel price is so strong in the commercial trucking sector, that policies to improve truck efficiency are unnecessary.”  Japan has already decided that the question to this answer is no–and passed the world’s first heavy-duty fuel economy standards in 2006.   

Here are some of the key observations I had from this conference:

• Big rig fuel economy is already moving forward, unlike cars. Fuel economy of heavy-duty vehicles in the U.S. has improved historically about 1 percent per year over the last couple of decades.  This trend–as opposed to stagnant fuel economy in the passenger vehicle market–provides evidence that fuel costs do in fact lead to some improvement in truck fuel efficiency.  The big question is, should it be more?
• Can heavy duty handle bigger fuel economy bang for bigger bucks?  In general, fuel efficiency technology gets integrated into trucks when the fuel savings over 2 to 3 years pay for the increased cost of the technology.  So what about more expensive, yet more efficient technologies with a 5 to 10 year payback, such as hydraulic hybrid systems?  Given that heavy-duty trucks operate for 20 years or more, it seems that these technologies with longer payback periods would also be cost effective, in fact perhaps more so than in the passenger vehicle sector.  One possible explanation could be that trucking companies tend to unload their trucks after about 5 years–and purchase newer ones that come with lower maintenance costs and potentially better fuel efficiency.   So while fuel economy improvements will save fuel costs over the life of the truck, the only ones that matter to the original owner are the ones in the first few years. 
• Some fuel-saving technologies still being “skirted” by truckers.  Turns out even if technologies pay for themselves in fuel savings, they are not always adopted.  Take side skirts on trailers for instance.  EPA estimates that a typical long haul truck could save more than $2,000 per year by installing aerodynamic fairings on to trailers which improve fuel efficiency by 5 percent.  The fairings (or side skirts) cost $2400, yet only a very small fraction of trailers has these installed.  Where is the market failure?  Perhaps it’s because trailer manufacturers don’t make the tractors and vice versa.  Also, one tractor may haul many different trailers over its useful life, so a trucker won’t make the investment to improve a single trailer.  The side skirts might impair ability to inspect the underside of the trailer or might cover the wheels requiring different inspection practices.  For whatever reason, these fuel-saving technologies are not being rapidly adopted. However, if all trailers came off the assembly line equipped with this technology, truckers would keep more money in their pocket instead of burning it up on fuel.
• Knowledge is power.  Access to information is another critically important component in making fuel-efficient truck purchasing decisions.  As a car buyer, I can go to a show room and look at a label posted on a window to find out what the estimated fuel economy of the vehicle is (or go online at www.fueleconomy.gov).  I can then go to the dealership across the street and make a comparison.   Big rigs are a whole other story.  There’s no fuel economy testing or labeling requirements for heavy-duty trucks (or even the Hummer H2 for that matter) to help me decide which truck gets better fuel economy.  The same goes for purchasing tires–which truckers may do multiple times in a year.  The rolling resistance of tires can have a significant effect on fuel economy, but most tires are not labeled. 
• Style is substance.  Keeping tires inflated, of course, is important and raises another aspect of fuel economy improvements.  Just like for passenger cars, maintenance, driving style, and speed can impact fuel economy.  The effect of driving technique is amplified when you’ve got 80,000 pounds behind you.  Driver education and training is an important part for improving fuel economy for trucks.
• It’s not just about what’s under the hood, but what’s in the cargo hold.  Think about the packaging of the goods we buy.  If we reduce packing materials, we could fit more products into a truck, and reduce the demand for truck trips.  Minimizing empty loads can also improve overall efficiency.

While there has been some improvement in fuel economy, it seems to me that there are plenty of improvements to be made to freight trucking efficiency and fuel economy standards is a good place to start.

Posted by: Sharkey