Search

The purpose of this report is to provide a research-driven analysis of options that can put California on a pathway to achieve carbon-neutral transportation by 2045. The report comprises thirteen sections. Section 1 provides an overview of the major components of transportation systems and how those components interact. Section 2 discusses the impacts the COVID-19 pandemic has had on transportation. Section 3 discusses California’s current transportation-policy landscape. These three sections were previously published as a synthesis report. Section 4 analyzes the different carbon scenarios, focusing on “business as usual” (BAU) and Low Carbon (LC1). Section 5 provides an overview of key policy mechanisms to utilize in decarbonizing transportation. Section 6 is an analysis of the light-duty vehicle sector, section 7 is the medium- and heavy-duty vehicle sectors, section 8 is reducing and electrifying vehicle miles traveled, and section 9 is an analysis of transportation fuels and their lifecycle. The following sections are an analysis of external costs and benefits: section 10 analyzes the health impacts of decarbonizing transportation, section 11 analyzes equity and environmental justice, and section 12 analyzes workforce and labor impacts. Finally, future research needs are provided in section 13. The study overall finds that cost-effective pathways to carbon-neutral transportation in California exist, but that they will require significant acceleration in a wide variety of policies.

In order to assess the state of knowledge of the private and social lifetime cost (LC) of conventional and alternative-powertrain vehicles (mainly electric vehicles), we reviewed and evaluated 190 LC studies published between 2000 and 2020. Our main objective was to determine which aspects of the LC of motor vehicles were well researched and well analyzed, and which aspects were less well researched and analyzed and accordingly would benefit most from a focused new research effort.  In general, few studies are comprehensive (cover all components of the LC), original (as opposed to reliant on other work), and detailed (as opposed to being based on simple assumptions).A spreadsheet accompanying this report evaluates all of the studies.

The purpose of this study overall is to explore the policy pathways to achieve a zero carbon transportation system in California by 2045. The purpose of this synthesis report is to describe the existing state of knowledge and policy related to energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, especially in California. It is an interim product of the larger study, which will use this report as the baseline and policy context sections. The report comprises four sections. Section 1 provides an overview of the major components of transportation systems and how those components interact. Section 2 explores key underlying concepts in transportation, including equity, health, employment, and environmental justice (EJ). Section 3 discusses California’s current transportation-policy landscape. Section 4 analyzes projected social, environmental, and economic outcomes of transportation under a “business as usual (BAU)” scenario—i.e., a scenario with no significant transportation-policy changes.

The purpose of this study overall is to explore the policy pathways to achieve a zero carbon transportation system in California by 2045. The purpose of this synthesis report is to describe the existing state of knowledge and policy related to energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector, especially in California. It is an interim product of the larger study, which will use this report as the baseline and policy context sections. The report comprises four sections. Section 1 provides an overview of the major components of transportation systems and how those components interact. Section 2 explores key underlying concepts in transportation, including equity, health, employment, and environmental justice (EJ). Section 3 discusses California’s current transportation-policy landscape. Section 4 analyzes projected social, environmental, and economic outcomes of transportation under a “business as usual (BAU)” scenario—i.e., a scenario with no significant transportation-policy changes.

Estimating the producer surplus – the revenue above the average long-run cost – is an important part of social cost-benefit analyses of changes in petroleum use. This paper estimates the producer surplus associated with changes in gasoline fuel use in the United States, and then applies the estimates of producer surplus to two kinds of social cost-benefit analyses related to petroleum use: (1) estimating the wealth transfer from consumers to producers as a result of policies that affect oil use and oil imports to the US, and (2) comparing the actual average cost of gasoline with the average cost of environmentally superior alternatives to gasoline, such as hydrogen. Our results show that a 50% reduction in gasoline use in the US in 2004 would have saved the US $72 billion in producer surplus payments to foreign oil producers. Applying our estimates to the comparison of the social lifetime cost of hydrogen vehicles versus gasoline vehicles, we find that inconsistently counting producer surplus from a US national perspective while counting climate change damages from a global perspective can overstate the present value lifetime costs of gasoline vehicles by $2,200 to $9,800 per vehicle.

In this report, the authors propose a dual-transportation network and community that would accommodate the preferences for auto-mobility and single-family homes,yet also offer much safer and cleaner, more pleasant and more socially integrated environment than what is commonly proposed in transportation and land use plans. A city with two universally accessible but completely separate and independent transportation networks is proposed. One network is for low-speed lightweight modes (LLMs) and the other is for fast-moving heavy vehicles (FHSVs). The authors review the economics and advantages of such a design, as well as the impacts on transportation problems. They conclude with a discussion regarding the social,political, and consumer factors determining the success of the proposed design.

Various alternative fuels and vehicles have been proposed to address transportation related environmental and energy issues such as air pollution, climate change and energy security. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are widely seen as an attractive long term option, having zero tailpipe emissions and much lower well to wheels emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases than gasoline vehicles. Hydrogen can be made from diverse primary resources such natural gas, coal, biomass, wind and solar energy, reducing petroleum dependence. Although these potential societal benefits are often cited as a rationale for hydrogen, few studies have attempted to quantify them. This paper attempts to answer the following research questions: what is the magnitude of externalities and other social costs for FCVs as compared to gasoline vehicles? Will societal benefits of hydrogen and FCVs make these vehicles more competitive with gasoline vehicles? How does this affect transition timing and costs for hydrogen FCVs? We employ societal lifetime cost as an important measure for evaluating hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) from a societal welfare perspective as compared to conventional gasoline vehicles. This index includes consumer direct economic costs (initial vehicle cost, fuel cost, and operating and maintenance cost) over the entire vehicle lifetime, and also considers external costs resulting from air pollution, noise, oil use and greenhouse gas emissions over the full fuel cycle and vehicle lifetime. Adjustments for non-cost social transfers such as taxes and fees, and producer surplus associated with fuel1 and vehicle are taken into account as well. Unlike gasoline, hydrogen is not widely distributed to vehicles today, and fuel cell vehicles are still in the demonstration phase. Understanding hydrogen transition issues is the key for assessing the promise of hydrogen. We have developed several models to address the issues associated with transition costs, in particular, high fuel cell system costs and large investments for hydrogen infrastructure in the early stages of a transition to hydrogen. We analyze three different scenarios developed by the US Department of Energy for hydrogen and fuel cell vehicle market penetration from 2010 to 2025. We employ a learning curve model characterized by three multiplicative factors (technological change, scale effect, and learning-by-doing) for key fuel cell stack components and auxiliary subsystems to estimate how fuel cell vehicle costs change over time. The delivered hydrogen fuel cost is estimated using the UC Davis SSCHISM hydrogen supply pathway model, and most vehicle costs are estimated using the Advanced Vehicle Cost and Energy Use Model (AVCEM). To estimate external costs, we use AVCEM and the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM). We estimate upstream air pollution damage costs with estimates of emissions factors from the LEM and damage factors with a simple normalized dispersion term from a previous analysis of air pollution external costs. This approach allows us to estimate the total societal cost of hydrogen FCVs compared to gasoline vehicles, and to examine our research questions. To account for uncertainties, we examine hydrogen transition costs for a range of market penetration rates, externality evaluations, technology assumptions, and oil prices. Our results show that although the cost difference between FCVs and gasoline vehicles is initially very large, FCVs eventually become lifetime cost competitive with gasoline vehicles as their production volume increases, even without accounting for externalities. Under the fastest market penetration scenario, the cumulative investment needed to bring hydrogen FCVs to lifetime cost parity with gasoline vehicles is about $14-$24 billion, and takes about 12 years, when we assume reference and high gasoline prices. However, when externalities and social transfers are considered, the buy-down cost of FCVs in the US could about $2-$5 billion less with medium valuation of externalities and $8-$15 billion less with high valuation of externalities. With global accounting and high valuation of externalities, we would have $7-$12 billion savings on the buy-down cost compared to a case without externality costs. Including social costs could make H2 FCVs competitive sooner, and at a lower overall societal cost.

In this chapter we report estimates of the external costs of transport in the United States.1 Generally, we cover road, rail, air, and water transport; passenger transport and freight transport; and congestion, accident, air pollution, climate change, noise, water pollution, and energy-security costs. However, we were not able to find estimates for all cost categories; in particular, there are fewer estimates for freight transport than for passenger transport, fewer estimates for water transport than for other modes, and fewer estimates of water pollution costs than of other costs. Table 1 summarizes the quality of estimates in each category.In our review, negative externalities are the unaccounted for or unpriced costs of an action. This means that they are the result of individual decisions or actions, such as whether to drive or take a train, or freight something by ship or plane, and are related to the explicit prices and unaccounted-for costs of those choices.Estimates of the external costs of transport may be used for several purposes: as a guide to more economically efficient pricing (given that the optimal price is equal to the private market price plus the estimated marginal external costs); as a guide to allocating research and development funds to mitigate the largest external costs; as part of a cost-benefit analysis of optimal investment in transportation modes and infrastructure; and as part of historical or comparative analyses.As indicated in Table 1, the available estimates do not fully characterize all costs for all modes. Moreover, the wide variations in estimation methods, data, and assumptions among even the “good” estimates confound the comparison of estimates across modes. As a result, we are able to make only general comparisons among modes and general statements about total costs of transport.In the following sections we review recent estimates of external costs by mode in the U. S. In each section we first review methods and issues in the estimation of the cost, and then present estimates of the costs. For each cost category (e.g., congestion delay, accidents) we summarize estimates of the cost by mode and study. Presenting the estimates in this way indicates where more research and analysis is needed.

In this paper I discuss general conceptual issues in the estimation of the impacts of CO2 emissions from soils and biomass, over time, as a result of land-use change (LUC) due to increased demand for energy crops. The effect of LUC on climate depends generally on the magnitude and timing of changes in soil and plant carbon, and in particular on the timing and extent of the reversion of land to original ecosystems at the end of the bioenergy program. Depending on whether one counts the climate impacts of any reversion of land uses, and how one values future climate-change impacts relative to present impacts, one can estimate anywhere from zero to very large climate impacts due to land-use change (LUC). I argue that the best method is to estimate the netpresent-value (NPV) of the impacts of climate change due to LUC. With this approach, one counts the reversion impacts at the end of the program and applies a continuous discounting function to future impacts to express them in present terms. In this case, the impacts of CO2 emissions from the initial LUC then are at least partially offset by the impacts of CO2 sequestration from reversion.

Urban regions worldwide are dominated by the need to provide for large numbers of high-speed, high-mass vehicles. Current strategies result in congestion, social fragmentation, and environmental degradation. An alternative urban design is presented that incorporates two separate road systems: one for light, low-speed vehicles and another for heavy, high-speed vehicles. This design enhances travel efficiency and sense of community, while minimizing energy use, water pollution, and nonrenewable resource consumption.

There has been considerable discussion about the extent to which motor-vehicle use in the US is “subsidized,” making petroleum-based motor vehicle use more attractive than other transportation modes. Estimates of these subsidies vary widely, and in many cases can be criticized on methodological grounds. In this paper we estimate corporate-income-tax, sales-tax, property-tax, and personal-income-tax subsidies related to motor-vehicle use. Whereas previous estimates of sales-tax and corporate-income-tax subsidies have been built piecemeal, tax provision by tax provision, we offer an alternative method, based on the difference between actual tax payments of the motor vehicle industry compared to other industries. We estimate that the total “tax subsidy” to motor-vehicle users in the US may be in the range of $19–64 billion (109) per year, or $0.11–0.37 per gallon ($0.03–0.10 per liter) of motor fuel. However, the amount of the subsidy, and hence the magnitude of its effect, depends greatly on the tax baseline with respect to which the subsidy is estimated. (The property-tax subsidy is particularly uncertain.) We emphasize that without doing a full equilibrium analysis, we cannot say how eliminating these subsidies would affect social welfare.

Analyses of the full social cost of motor vehicle use in the US often estimate an “oil import premium” that includes the military cost of defending oil supplies from the Persian Gulf. Estimates of this cost have ranged from essentially zero to upwards of a $1 per gallon (about $0.25 per liter). In this paper, we attempt to narrow this range, by carefully answering the question: “If the US highway transportation sector did not use oil, how much would the US federal government reduce its military commitment in the Persian Gulf?” We work towards our answer in five steps, accounting for interests not related to oil, the interests of other oil-consuming countries, the interests of producers apart from the interests of consumers, and the interests of non-highway users of oil. We estimate that were there no oil in the Persian Gulf, then US combined peacetime and wartime defense expenditures might be reduced in the long run by roughly $27–$73 billion per year (in 2004 dollars), of which roughly $6–$25 billion annually ($0.03–$0.15 per gallon or $0.01–$0.04 per liter) is attributable to motor-vehicle use.

In this paper, we review some of the basic energy balance and climate change impact issues associated with biofuels. For both the basic energy and greenhouse gas balances of producing and using a range of fuels, and for the increasingly debated and important issues of nongreenhouse gas impacts such as land, fertilizer, and water use, we conclude that an improved framework for the analysis and evaluation of biofuels is needed. These new methodologies and data sets are needed on both physical and socioeconomic aspects of the life-cycle of biofuels. We detail some of components that could be used to build this methodology and highlight key areas for future research. We look at the history and potential impacts of building the resource base for biofuel research, as well as at some of the land-use and socioeconomic impacts of different feedstock-to-fuel pathways.

In this paper, we review some of the basic energy balance and climate change impact issues associated with biofuels. For both the basic energy and greenhouse gas balances of producing and using a range of fuels, and for the increasingly debated and important issues of nongreenhouse gas impacts such as land, fertilizer, and water use, we conclude that an improved framework for the analysis and evaluation of biofuels is needed. These new methodologies and data sets are needed on both physical and socioeconomic aspects of the life-cycle of biofuels. We detail some of components that could be used to build this methodology and highlight key areas for future research. We look at the history and potential impacts of building the resource base for biofuel research, as well as at some of the land-use and socioeconomic impacts of different feedstock-to-fuel pathways.

In this paper, we review some of the basic energy balance and climate change impact issues associated with biofuels. For both the basic energy and greenhouse gas balances of producing and using a range of fuels, and for the increasingly debated and important issues of nongreenhouse gas impacts such as land, fertilizer, and water use, we conclude that an improved framework for the analysis and evaluation of biofuels is needed. These new methodologies and data sets are needed on both physical and socioeconomic aspects of the life-cycle of biofuels. We detail some of components that could be used to build this methodology and highlight key areas for future research. We look at the history and potential impacts of building the resource base for biofuel research, as well as at some of the land-use and socioeconomic impacts of different feedstock-to-fuel pathways.

Governments in the US spend over a hundred billion dollars per year to build and maintain roads and provide a variety of services for motor-vehicle users. To pay for these infrastructure and services governments collect revenue from a variety of taxes and fees. The basic objective of this paper is to compare these government expenditures with the corresponding user tax and fee payments in the US. At the outset I argue that the such comparisons tell us something about the equity but not necessarily the economic efficiency of highway financing. I then present four different ways one might tally up government expenditures and user payments, depending on the extent to which one wishes to count ‘‘indirect’’ expenditures (e.g., on prosecuting car thieves) and non-targeted general-tax payments (e.g., severance taxes on oil). I make a comprehensive analysis of all possible expenditures and payments, and then compare them according to three of the four ways of counting expenditures and payments. The analysis indicates that in the US current tax and fee payments to the government by motor-vehicle users fall short of government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use by approximately 20–70 cents per gallon of all motor fuel. (Note that in this accounting we include only government expenditures; we do not include any ‘‘external’’ costs of motor-vehicle use.) The extent to which one counts indirect government expenditures related to motor-vehicle use is a key factor in the comparison.

Motor vehicles are a core technology of our modern life and economy. But motor vehicles, motor fuels, and the road system unfortunately pollute our air, soil and water, depend on limited oil supplies and are implicated in warming the earth’s climate.In response, some car companies have introduced the biggest change in automotive technology since early in the last century. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) reduce emissions and fuel use through increased fuel economy. So far, full-HEV technology has been used to reduce automotive fuel use by up to 40% and reduce emissions to meet California’s (and thus, the nation’s) most stringent air quality standards. The following study measures such benefits.Americans are currently buying over 20,000 HEVs per month; one model, the Toyota Prius has reached sales volumes of over 100,000 units per year. However, total HEV sales are still small compared to annual sales of all vehicles and the total number of vehicles on the road. HEVs account for about 1.6% of the annual US market of 17 million new light-duty vehicles, and only 0.2% of the total US fleet of 230 million light-duty vehicles. The numbers of makes and models offered as HEVs are small, and sales are just getting started. To spread hybrid technologies across the entire market, and replace most vehicles on the road will take decades.Still, HEVs are making an impact beyond their incipient number, primarily by being the first “green” cars on the market and setting a standard of achievement for high fuel economy and low emissions. HEV sales and their halo effect on Toyota and Honda have spurred a contest between automobile makers to supply the latest high-tech, clean, and green technologies. In the California market, hybrids account for 3% of total new light duty vehicles sales, and hybrid sales growth outpaces that of conventional models (Automotive News Data). If this contest is noticed by more car and truck buyers, it may well transform the automotive market, accelerating the introduction of alternative fuels and other electric drive technologies such as plug-in HEVs and full electric vehicles to market.In the following sections, we review the problems motor vehicles cause, then describe the varieties of hybrid technologies. Then we analyze what difference HEVs are making right now and can make in the future for our air, water, security, and climate.

The U.S. spends a considerable amount of money protecting what it feels are its interests in the Persian Gulf. The exact amount is difficult to estimate, because the Defense budget is itemized not by region or mission, but rather, as shown in Table 15-4, by general function or cost area, such as operations and maintenance. Many of the functional areas cover more than one region or program, and hence one faces the difficult task of having to allocate joint costs to individual areas. Different analysts have handled this differently, and as a results estimates of the peacetime costs of maintaining a military presence in the Middle East range widely, from as little as $0.5 billion to as much as $64.5 billion per year (see Tables 15-5 and 15-6). Additional wartime costs may be a substantial fraction of this.

The authors of this report provide estimates of the tax expenditures related to the production and consumption of transportation fuels. They begin by discussing the relationship between tax expenditures and social welfare and tax expenditures versus public-sector costs. They estimate that sales tax and corporate income tax expenditures related to motor vehicles and their fuel may be several billion dollars per year. But they emphasize that these estimates should be considered with respect to questions of fairness, not economic efficiency. The authors point out that they do not add the estimates of environmental externalities, public-sector expenditures, and tax expenditures together because tax expenditures are not necessarily social costs in the same way that environmental externalities and public sector expenditures for roads are.

This manuscript on lifecycle analysis (LCA) of biofuels for transportation has three major parts:* I. An analysis of greenhouse-gas emissions from biofuels, estimated using the Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM). * II. A review of recent LCAs of biofuels. * III. A comprehensive conceptual framework for doing LCAs of biofuels.

In this Report, we explain how we model the contribution of motor-vehicles and other emissions sources to ambient air pollution.In Reports 11, 12, and 13 of this social-cost series (see the list at the beginning of this report), we develop dose-response functions that estimate changes in human health, crop production, and visibility as a function of changes in ambient air pollution: ΔE = f(ΔP,O) = f  (PI, PP,O),where: ∆E = the change in the effect of interest (human health, crop production, or visibility)∆P = the change in ambient air pollutionO = other variables (such as population or incidence rate)PI = the initial pollution levelPP = the pollution level after the change in pollution -- in this social-cost analysis, the level after removing all anthropogenic emissions, or 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle related emissions.The initial pollution level, PI, is the actual ambient air quality in each county in the U.S. These data, and the data for any of the other variables O, such as population, are discussed in Reports 11, 12, and 13. In this report, we discuss how we estimate PP, the pollution level after removing anthropogenic emissions, or 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle related emissions.Note that, when we estimate the pollution level after removing motor-vehicle related emissions, we estimate the effects of a specific, “marginal” change in pollution: the difference between actual pollution (PI) and, what pollution would have been had motor-vehicle-related emissions been reduced by 10% or 100% (PP). We did consider as an alternative estimating the effect of all anthropogenic air pollution and then assigning a fraction of this total effect to motor vehicles, but for two reasons rejected this alternative. First, some of our dose-response functions (in Reports 11, 12, and 13) are nonlinear, which means that the change in effects (the responses) depends not only on the difference between PI and PP (the “doses”), but on the absolute magnitudes of PI and PP as well. A decrease in pollution from 15 units to 10 units does not necessarily 1 result in the same change in effects as does a decrease from 10 units to 5 units or from 5 units to zero units. If all of the dose-response functions were linear, then effects would be a function only of the difference between PI and PP, and one would have to specify only this difference, and not the absolute values of PI and PP. But as this is not the case, we must specify the absolute magnitudes of PP and PI.Second, because ozone formation is a nonlinear function of two precursor pollutants, NOx and VOCs, the only way to model the real nonlinear effect on ozone of motor-vehicle ozone-precursor emissions is to model actual ozone levels with and without motor vehicle precursor emissions. It simply is not meaningful to model the elimination of all anthropogenic pollution and then use some ad-hoc rules or “apportioning” factors assign a fraction of this eliminated pollution to motor vehicles.In short, we perform a “with/without” analysis: we estimate the health, agriculture, or visibility effects of the difference between total air pollution (with motorvehicle-related emissions) and air pollution with 10% or 100% of motor-vehicle-related emissions eliminated. To estimate the difference in pollution due to motor-vehicle emissions, we use data on ambient air quality, a detailed emissions inventory, emissions correction factors, and a simple air-quality dispersion model.

There are 21 reports in this series. This final report comprises references and bibliographic material for all reports except those in Report #11, “The Cost of the Health Effects of Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles.”

AVCEM is an electric and gasoline vehicle energy-use and lifetime-cost model. AVCEM designs a motor vehicle to meet range and performance requirements specified by the modeler, and then calculates the initial retail cost and total private and social lifetime cost of the designed vehicle. It can be used to investigate the relationship between the lifetime cost – the total cost of vehicle ownership and operation over the life of the vehicle – and important parameters in the design and use of the vehicle.There are three major parts to AVCEM and the AVCEM documentation:* the model of vehicle cost and weight * the model of vehicle energy use * periodic ownership and operating costs.The model of vehicle cost and weight consists of a model of manufacturing cost and weight, and a model of all of the other costs – division costs, corporate costs, and dealer costs – that compose the total retail cost. The manufacturing cost is the materials and labor cost of making the vehicle. In our analysis, material and labor cost is estimated for all of the nearly 40 subsystems that make up a complete vehicle. We also perform detailed analyses of the manufacturing cost of the key unique components of electric vehicles: batteries, fuel cells, fuel-storage systems, and electric drivetrains.The model of vehicle energy use is a second-by-second simulation of all of the forces acting on a vehicle over a specified drive cycle. The purpose of this model is to accurately determine the amount of energy required to move a vehicle of particular characteristics over a specified drivecycle, with the ultimate objective of calculating the size of the battery or fuel-cell system necessary to satisfy the user-specified range and performance requirements. (The cost of the battery or fuel-cell system is directly related to its size; hence the importance of an accurate energy-use and performance analysis within a lifetime cost analysis.) The energy-use simulation is the standard textbook application of the physics of work, with a variety of empirical approximations, to the movement of motor vehicles.Periodic ownership and operating costs, such as insurance, maintenance and repair, and energy, are in toto about the same magnitude as the amortized initial cost, and hence an important component of the total lifetime cost of ownership and use. Because of this, and because these costs can vary with the vehicle technology, it is helpful to estimate them accurately. We develop detailed estimates of the most important of these costs, which are maintenance and repair and insurance. Note that in the AVCEM documentation, periodic ownership and operating costs include external costs, such as the cost of air pollution, and financial parameters, such as interest rates. The AVCEM documentation also contains an appendix that details some aspects of our modeling of battery and drivetrain parameters.

The author of this report, one in a series documenting the social cost of motor-vehicle use in the U.S., examines the costs of motor vehicle goods and services priced in the private sector. This includes the cost of the vehicles themselves, fuel and oil, parts and maintenance. He concludes that the total estimated cost of motor vehicle-related goods and services priced in the private sector in 1991 ranged from approximately $830 to $940 billion. The most costly items are the vehicles themselves, their maintenance and repair, and travel time. The author’s estimates include costs of private commercial and residential parking, travel time that displaces paid work, costs of motor-vehicle accidents, and the deduction of taxes and fees. The author notes that most of the cost items considered show up in estimates by other analysts of the cost of owning and operating motor vehicles. However, his analysis also includes several items that are not usually included. These include compensated work travel time, the overhead expenses of business, commercial and government fleets, and accident costs paid for by a responsible party.

In this ninth paper in a series on the social cost of motor-vehicle use in the U.S., the author reports that the literature on externalities is enormous, and there is much debate on the terminology and particular aspects of externalities. He examines various definitions of externalities dating back to 1958. For the sake of this paper, he adopts the definition that externalities are unintended effects. When estimating the external cost of motor-vehicle use, the author examines the following: pain, suffering, death and lost non-market productivity due to motor-vehicle accidents; travel delay imposed by other drivers; the health effects of air pollution from motor vehicles; the cost of reduced visibility due to pollution; the climate change damage; the cost of noise from motor vehicles; the environmental impacts of leaking motor-fuel storage tanks; the impact of large oil spills; related water pollution; habitat destruction; the socially divisive effects of roads as barriers; and the esthetics of roads and the motor-vehicle service infrastructure.

Human activities associated with the production and use of energy and materials can pollute the air and water. Since the late 1960s concern about regional and local air pollution has led to the adoption of environmental laws and regulations regarding major polluting human activities, such as fuel use for transportation or electricity production. More recently, concern about the impact of human activities on global climate has led to discussions about ways to reduce emissions of the so-called "greenhouse gases" that affect global climate.In the United States and worldwide, the transportation sector is one of the largest sources of urban air pollutants and greenhouse-gases (GHGs). As a result, policy makers and analysts often evaluate the impact of transportation policies on urban air quality and on global climate. The tools available for evaluating impacts on urban air quality (emission-factor models, travel models, and air-quality models) are reasonably well developed, but some of the tools for evaluating impacts on global climate (namely, lifecycle emissions models) are rudimentary and incomplete. This paper discusses some of the methodological and data issues pertinent to using lifecycle analysis (LCA) to evaluate the impacts of transportation on global climate.

This report is an appendix to the report titled "'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". This report presents an analysis of the energy and emissions associated with the lifecycle of materials and automobiles. The materials composition of motor vehicles is discussed including descriptions of manufacturing processes, tabulations of energy and emissions data, and data sources. Energy use in and emissions from the assembly of motor vehicles is discussed as well as the transportation of raw materials, semi-fabricated products, and motor vehicles. The report also discusses energy used to make agricultural chemicals, with focus on materials used in automobiles.

This report is an appendix to the report title "'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". The LEM can estimate lifecycle emissions from the use of transportation fuels, transport modes, electricity, and heat in any one of up to 30 countries. Country-specific values have been developed for only the most important parameters. 23 different data categories are coupled with country-specific parameters.

This report is an appendix to the report titled "'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". Focus is on methane emissions from natural gas production, oil production, coal mining, and hydropower reservoirs

This report is an appendix to the report, 'A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It begins with a brief overview of greenhouse gases and climate change. Major emission sources of greenhouse gases and aerosols are discussed. Background information of estimating carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalency factors (CEFS) is presented. The report then focuses on CEFS and methods and parameter values for gases with direct radiative forcing effects and for gases with indirect effects on climate.

This report is an appendix to the report title "A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It provides a database of estimates of emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles and power plants. The report also develops emission factors for nitrous oxide and methane emissions from conventional vehicles such as different alternative fuel passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and heavy-duty trucks.

This report is an appendix to the report titled "A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It examines the use of biodiesel as a heavy duty vehicle fuel. The report gives an overview on biodiesel production, byproducts from biodiesel production, biodiesel demonstrations, fuel consumption and maintenance, and biodiesel combustion and emissions.

This report is an appendix to the report titled "A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It focuses on the relationship between vehicle weight and vehicle fuel economy. A model is used for determining the amount of energy required to move a vehicle of particular characteristics over a specified drive cycle, with the objective of calculating the size of the battery or fuel-cell system needed to satisfy the user-specified range and performance requirements. The energy-use model simulates a Ford Taurus and a Ford Escort in city or highway driving.

This report is an appendix to the report titled "A Lifecycle emissions model (LEM): lifecycle emissions from transportation fuels, motor vehicles, transportation modes, electricity use, heating and cooking fuels, and materials". It contains contains for all materials referenced in the main report.

An Appendix to the Report, “A Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM): Lifecycle Emissions From Transportation Fuels, Motor Vehicles, Transportation Modes, Electricity Use, Heating and Cooking Fuels, and Materials”

This report documents changes to the methods and data in a recently revised version of the greenhouse-gas emissions model originally documented in Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity, ANL/ESD/TM-22, Volumes 1 and 2, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne (ANL), Illinois (DeLuchi, 1991, 1993). The revised Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM) calculates energy use, air-pollutant emissions, and CO2-equivalent emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), chlorofluorocarbons (CFC-12), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), non-methane organic compounds (NMOCs) weighted by their ozone-forming potential, sulfur oxides (SOx), hydrogen (H2), and particulate matter (PM) from the lifecycle of fuels and materials for a wide range of transportation modes, vehicles, and fuels.

The process for developing a detailed, comprehensive model of lifecycle emissions of urban air pollutants and greenhouse gases from the use of variety of transportation modes is described. The Lifecycle Emissions Model (LEM) estimates energy use, criteria pollutant emissions, and CO2-equivalent greenhouse-gas emissions from a variety of transportation and energy lifecycles. It includes a wide range of modes of passenger and freight transport, electricity generation, heating and cooking, and more. For transport modes, it represents the lifecycle of fuels, vehicles, materials, and infrastructure. It accounts for energy use and all regulated air pollutants plus so-called greenhouse gases. It includes input data for up to 20 countries, for the years 1970 to 2050, and is fully specified for the U.S.

Abstract Air pollution from motor vehicles, electricity-generating plants, industry, and other sources can harm human health, injure crops and forests, damage building materials, and impair visibility. Economists sometimes analyze the social cost of these impacts, in order to illuminate tradeoffs, compare alternatives, and promote efficient use of scarce resource. In this paper, we compare estimates of the health and visibility costs of air pollution derived from a meta-hedonic price analysis, with an estimate of health costs derived from a damage-function analysis and an estimate of the visibility cost derived from contingent valuation. We find that the meta-hedonic price analysis produces an estimate of the health cost that lies at the low end of the range of damage-function estimates. This is consistent with hypotheses that on the one hand, hedonic price analysis does not capture all of the health costs of air pollution (because individuals may not be fully informed about all of the health effects), and that on the other hand, the value of mortality used in the high-end damage function estimates is too high. The analysis of the visibility cost of air pollution derived from a meta-hedonic price analysis produces an estimate that is essentially identical to an independent estimate based on contingent valuation. This close agreement lends some credence to the estimates. We then apply the meta hedonic-price model to estimate the visibility cost per kilogram of motor vehicle emissions.