Searching for hidden costs: A technology-based approach to the energy efficiency gap in light-duty vehicles

Helfand, Gloria E.; McWilliams, Michael; Bolon, Kevin; Reichle, L.F.C.; Sha, Mandy; Smith, Amanda; Beach, Robert

doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.09.014

Cited by 6 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For a review of this literature, see Helfand et al. (2016). We found that the studies reviewed vary widely in technical quality and relevance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To account for nonfinancial features, we use literature values for the shadow prices for those nonfinancial factors (i.e., hedonic prices for cargo space and acceleration times). For a review of this literature, see Helfand et al (2016). We found that the studies reviewed vary widely in technical quality and relevance.…”

Section: Shadow Price For Cargo and Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively stated, fuel-saving technology has a payback period that exceeds the product’s useful life. Even if the new technology is not more expensive to purchase, it may have drawbacks (e.g., performance, quality, or convenience) that the consumer believes outweigh the private fuel-saving benefits (Small, 2010; Allcott & Greenstone, 2012; Helfand et al., 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?

Duncan¹,

Ku²,

Julian³

et al. 2018

J. Benefit Cost Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although federal regulation of vehicle fuel economy is often seen as environmental policy, over 70% of the estimated benefits of the 2017–2025 federal standards are savings in consumer expenditures on gasoline. Rational-choice economists question the counting of these benefits since studies show that the fuel efficiency of a car is reflected in its price at sale and resale. We contribute to this debate by exploring why most consumers in the United States do not purchase a proven fuel-saving innovation: the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV). A database of 110 vehicle pairs is assembled where a consumer can choose a hybrid or gasoline version of virtually the same vehicle. Few choose the HEV. A total cost of ownership model is used to estimate payback periods for the price premiums associated with the HEV choice. In a majority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is sufficient to understand consumer disinterest in the HEV. However, in a significant minority of cases, a rational-choice explanation is not readily apparent, even when non-pecuniary attributes (e.g., performance and cargo space) are considered. Future research should examine, from a behavioral economics perspective, why consumers do not choose HEVs when pricing and payback periods appear to be favorable.

show abstract

“…For a review of this literature, see Helfand et al. (2016). We found that the studies reviewed vary widely in technical quality and relevance.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Shadow Price For Cargo and Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?

Duncan¹,

Ku²,

Julian³

et al. 2018

J. Benefit Cost Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Questions have arisen whether there are hidden costs that have not been included in the net benefit calculations as a result of adoption of the new technologies. In this paper, we replicate and expand results from Helfand et al (2016). We define hidden costs of the new technologies as problems with operational characteristics such as acceleration, handling, ride comfort, noise, braking feel, and vibration, not all of which are easily measured by objective criteria.…”

mentioning

confidence: 88%

Re-searching for hidden costs: Evidence from the adoption of fuel-saving technologies in light-duty vehicles

Huang

Helfand

Bolon

et al. 2018

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of fuel-saving technologies have been implemented in light-duty vehicles since 2012 under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Department of Transportation (DOT)'s light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and fuel economy standards. Questions have arisen whether there are hidden costs that have not been included in the net benefit calculations as a result of adoption of the new technologies. In this paper, we replicate and expand results from Helfand et al. (2016). We define hidden costs of the new technologies as problems with operational characteristics such as acceleration, handling, ride comfort, noise, braking feel, and vibration, not all of which are easily measured by objective criteria. We overcome the empirical challenge by using data coded from online professional auto reviews that qualitatively evaluate fuel-saving technologies and operational characteristics for model years 2014 and 2015 vehicles. We estimate relationships of fuel-saving technologies and operational characteristics, including an overall vehicle assessment, and find little correlation of hidden costs with the technologies themselves. Variable quality of implementation of technologies across automakers may better explain negatively evaluated operational characteristics. The results imply that automakers have typically been able to implement fuel-saving technologies without harm to vehicle operational characteristics.

show abstract

“…Igualmente, la eficiencia durante la operación es un parámetro para considerar; se ha evaluado que una reducción simultanea del 10 % en la aceleración y la velocidad podría reducir el consumo de combustible en un 8,81 % [20]. Helfand G et al mencionan que los compradores de vehículos están dispuestos a pagar alrededor del 76% del valor de los posibles ahorros futuros en el combustible [21]. A continuación, en la Tabla 1 se presentan algunas de las estrategias de eficiencia energética identificadas, las cuales pueden ser implementadas en vehículos livianos del sector transporte por carretera.…”

Section: Estrategias De Eficiencia Energética En Vehículos Livianosunclassified

Estrategias de eficiencia energética en vehículos livianos del transporte por carretera en Colombia

Castillo¹,

Restrepo²,

Tibaquirá³

et al. 2019

revuin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

El sector de transporte por carretera en Colombia es el responsable del 44 % del consumo de energéticos. Igualmente, se clasifica como el principal consumidor de los combustibles derivados del petróleo y el sector productivo con mayores pérdidas de energía. En este estudio se presentan estrategias tecnológicas y operacionales que mejoran el rendimiento de los vehículos livianos. Además, se identifican metodologías encaminadas a la medición del consumo energético y emisiones de los vehículos y se evalúa la conducción eficiente como estrategia de eficiencia energética en Colombia. Como resultado, se implementó la metodología de pruebas basada en la Regulación CFR 40 de los Estados Unidos y COPANT en un laboratorio del país, y se evaluó mediante el aseguramiento metrológico el consumo de combustible en un vehículo liviano de combustión interna. Adicionalmente, empleando conducción eficiente se identificó un aumento en el rendimiento del 15 % y 20 % en pruebas de laboratorio y ruta respectivamente.

show abstract

Searching for hidden costs: A technology-based approach to the energy efficiency gap in light-duty vehicles

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?

Most Consumers Don’t Buy Hybrids: Is Rational Choice a Sufficient Explanation?

Re-searching for hidden costs: Evidence from the adoption of fuel-saving technologies in light-duty vehicles

Estrategias de eficiencia energética en vehículos livianos del transporte por carretera en Colombia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About