lynx   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v65y2014icp419-431.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A parametric analysis of future ethanol use in the light-duty transportation sector: Can the US meet its Renewable Fuel Standard goals without an enforcement mechanism?

Author

Listed:
  • Westbrook, Jessica
  • Barter, Garrett E.
  • Manley, Dawn K.
  • West, Todd H.
Abstract
The modified Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) prescribes a volume of biofuels to be used in the United States transportation sector each year through 2022. As the dominant component of the transportation sector, we consider the feasibility of the light-duty vehicle (LDV) parc to provide enough demand for biofuels to satisfy RFS2. Sensitivity studies show that the fuel price differential between gasoline and ethanol blendstocks, such as E85, is the principal factor in LDV biofuel consumption. The numbers of flex fuel vehicles and biofuel refueling stations will grow given a favorable price differential. However, unless the feedstock price differential becomes extreme (biomass prices below $100 per dry ton and oil prices above $215 per barrel), which deviates from historical price trends, LDV parc biofuel consumption will fall short of the RFS2 mandate without an enforcement mechanism. Additionally, such commodity prices might increase biofuel consumption in the short-term, but discourage use of biofuels in the long-term as other technologies that do not rely on any gasoline blendstock may be preferable. Finally, the RFS2 program goals of reducing fossil fuel consumption and transportation greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved through other pathways, such as notable improvements in conventional vehicle efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Westbrook, Jessica & Barter, Garrett E. & Manley, Dawn K. & West, Todd H., 2014. "A parametric analysis of future ethanol use in the light-duty transportation sector: Can the US meet its Renewable Fuel Standard goals without an enforcement mechanism?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 419-431.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:65:y:2014:i:c:p:419-431
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513010525
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.030?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Soren T., 2012. "The demand for ethanol as a gasoline substitute," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 151-168.
    2. Parcell, Joseph L. & Westhoff, Patrick C., 2006. "Economic Effects of Biofuel Production on States and Rural Communities," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-11, August.
    3. Barter, Garrett E. & Reichmuth, David & Westbrook, Jessica & Malczynski, Leonard A. & West, Todd H. & Manley, Dawn K. & Guzman, Katherine D. & Edwards, Donna M., 2012. "Parametric analysis of technology and policy tradeoffs for conventional and electric light-duty vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 473-488.
    4. Burnes, Ellen & Wichelns, Dennis & Hagen, John W., 2005. "Economic and policy implications of public support for ethanol production in California's San Joaquin Valley," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1155-1167, June.
    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. Tokgoz, Simla & Traoré, Fousseini, 2023. "Understanding E10 markets in the U.S.: Evidence from spatial data," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 1267-1281.
    2. Whistance, Jarrett & Thompson, Wyatt, 2014. "The role of CAFE standards and alternative-fuel vehicle production credits in U.S. biofuels markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 147-157.
    3. Ghoddusi, Hamed, 2017. "Price risks for biofuel producers in a deregulated market," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(PB), pages 394-407.
    4. Karel Janda & Eva Michalikova & Luiz Célio Souza Rocha & Paulo Rotella Junior & Barbora Schererova & David Zilberman, 2022. "Review of the Impact of Biofuels on U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, December.
    5. Dumortier, Jerome & Carriquiry, Miguel & Elobeid, Amani, 2021. "Where does all the biofuel go? Fuel efficiency gains and its effects on global agricultural production," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PA).
    6. Michael D. Noel & Travis Roach, 2016. "Regulated And Unregulated Substitutes: Aversion Effects Of An Ethanol Mandate," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(2), pages 1150-1166, April.
    7. Radpour, Saeidreza & Hossain Mondal, Md Alam & Kumar, Amit, 2017. "Market penetration modeling of high energy efficiency appliances in the residential sector," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 951-961.
    8. Chen, Yuche & Meier, Alan, 2016. "Fuel consumption impacts of auto roof racks," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 325-333.

    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. Peterson, Meghan B. & Barter, Garrett E. & West, Todd H. & Manley, Dawn K., 2014. "A parametric study of light-duty natural gas vehicle competitiveness in the United States through 2050," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 206-217.
    2. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Switching from fossil fuel to renewables in residential heating systems: An empirical study of homeowners' decisions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 95-105.
    3. Christina Korting & Harry de Gorter & David R Just, 2019. "Who Will Pay for Increasing Biofuel Mandates? Incidence of the Renewable Fuel Standard Given a Binding Blend Wall," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(2), pages 492-506.
    4. Davison, Matt & Merener, Nicolas, 2023. "Equilibrium and real options in the ethanol industry: Modeling and empirical evidence," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).
    5. Sébastien Pouliot & Kenneth A Liao & Bruce A Babcock, 2018. "Estimating Willingness to Pay for E85 in the United States Using an Intercept Survey of Flex Motorists," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(5), pages 1486-1509.
    6. Pouliot, Sébastien, 2013. "Arbitrage between ethanol and gasoline: evidence from motor fuel consumption in Brazil," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150964, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Ji, Xi & Long, Xianling, 2016. "A review of the ecological and socioeconomic effects of biofuel and energy policy recommendations," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 41-52.
    8. DeCicco, John M., 2013. "Factoring the car-climate challenge: Insights and implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 382-392.
    9. Luo, Jinjing & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2019. "Pass-through of the policy-induced E85 subsidy: Insights from Hotelling's model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Du, Xiaodong & Carriquiry, Miguel A., 2013. "Spatiotemporal analysis of ethanol market penetration," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 128-135.
    11. Henderson, Jason R. & Gloy, Brent A., 2008. "The Impact of Ethanol Plants on Land Values in the Great Plains," 2007 Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition, October 4-5, 2007, St. Louis, Missouri 48148, Regional Research Committee NC-1014: Agricultural and Rural Finance Markets in Transition.
    12. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar & Jongwanich, Juthathip, 2016. "Supply and demand of biofuels in the fuel market of Thailand: Two stage least square and three least square approaches," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 431-443.
    13. Crago, Christine Lasco & Khanna, Madhu, 2014. "Carbon abatement in the fuel market with biofuels: Implications for second best policies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 89-103.
    14. Thiago B. Murari & Aloisio S. Nascimento Filho & Eder J.A.L. Pereira & Paulo Ferreira & Sergio Pitombo & Hernane B.B. Pereira & Alex A.B. Santos & Marcelo A. Moret, 2019. "Comparative Analysis between Hydrous Ethanol and Gasoline C Pricing in Brazilian Retail Market," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-12, August.
    15. Carlos Frederico A. Uchoa & Cleiton S. de Jesus & Leonardo C. B. Cardoso, 2021. "The asymmetric pattern of fuel demand in Brazil," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(1), pages 155-160.
    16. Li, Jing & Stock, James H., 2019. "Cost pass-through to higher ethanol blends at the pump: Evidence from Minnesota gas station data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 1-19.
    17. JunJie Wu & Christian Langpap, 2015. "The Price and Welfare Effects of Biofuel Mandates and Subsidies," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(1), pages 35-57, September.
    18. Sebastien Pouliot & Bruce A. Babcock, 2014. "Impact of Ethanol Mandates on Fuel Prices when Ethanol and Gasoline are Imperfect Substitutes," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 14-wp551, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    19. Stephen P. Holland & Jonathan E. Hughes & Christopher R. Knittel & Nathan C. Parker, 2015. "Some Inconvenient Truths about Climate Change Policy: The Distributional Impacts of Transportation Policies," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1052-1069, December.
    20. Wen, Pei-Ling & Lin, Jin-Xu & Lin, Shih-Mo & Feng, Chun-Chiang & Ko, Fu-Kuang, 2015. "Optimal production of cellulosic ethanol from Taiwan's agricultural waste," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 294-304.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    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:eee:enepol:v:65:y:2014:i:c:p:419-431. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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.
    Лучший частный хостинг