CMU study finds small battery PHEVs and hybrids the least-cost policy solution to reducing gasoline

My father graduated CMU so I am not casting dispersions but it's a little fishy sponsorship. Bear in mind I am a huge Toyota supporter.

 

I don't question the ethics of the faculty -- I don't think they would skew their results for a sponsor. But if the sponsors asked them to answer a particular question.. such "what is the best use of the tax credits to reduce current gas consumption.. smaller batteries or bigger batteries", that would then be the question they consider. As I said, to me that is not the purpose of the tax credits.

When I read things like

"If the purpose of the ..."

or
"If more gasoline savings are needed per vehicle"

As an academic I know that is that as code for them realizing the study is looking at a particularly narrow question/interpretation. Its not hard to look at the cited ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007, and notice that it does not list that as the purpose. Furthermore, that is not even the act that established EV credits -- that was done in the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, which has no mention of reducing gasoline as its purpose.

The study does not really present data defending reducing gasoline in the purchased cars, as the purpose. They just start from the premise that "If that is the purpose".. then they do the analysis to reach the conclusion of the study.
This way the can satisfy their funding agencies and still maintain their academic credibility.

 

I feel like I'm in an iPhone forum where the Android users keep saying how much better Android is.
Seriously, it's a little tiring.
I'd be happy to see discussions of the actual study here and how good the methodology is. But getting into the details of what the goal of a particular piece of legislation was? Plus, who cares what the goal was? The study isn't to determine what is the most effective policy for meeting the goals of the legislation as it's been passed, the study is to determine what the most effective use of taxpayer money is, assuming that your goal is to maximize reduction of gasoline consumption.
Period.
If you think that's a lame goal, so be it. But can we stop arguing about that already?

 

You seem to be projecting.. nothing in this thread has been about what OS (car) is better..

As I already pointed out that the methodology is very flawed -- it does not consider how the market actually works.
To understand the impact of taxpayer investment they would have to consider the investment from the companies to make new products, the expected new products produced and their expected sale rate with and without credits -- only when all three are considered can one assess what the incentives changed.

None of these three critical market elements are considered in the study. Instead, they presume that all products considered are produced/sold independent of the credit, ignore the investment in product development from the companies to make the products, and then attribute all gas saved entirely to the current tax credit, and ignore all further versions of the technology developed.

Furthermore, the study is flawed in that it deciding what is "best", it also considers a very small range of options and ignore the broader economic impact:

• If the only goal is maximizing reducing gasoline consumption, then no taxpayer money is needed. Just pushing up the cafe requirements and let the market sort out how to get there. In terms of (short term) gallons saved per dollars spent, they can do infinitely better than spending it on any incentives for any cars.
• They ignore other investments/revenue. They ignore company investment. They also ignore other tax, e.g. the program could increase taxes on low MPG vehicles.. As USB correctly pointed out after I suggested that earlier -- it would not be popular. However, it would be far better given the metrics defined by the study and hence makes it obvious that the study does not really consider the overall "least cost policy". There is no discussion on what general policies were considered acceptable and why.
• If a policy using taxpayer money leads to increased domestic jobs,via manufacturing, infrastructure building and/or electricity production, then those new jobs pump more money back into the economy which would also need to be conspired. A proper economic analysis considers both direct and indirect impact. Oddly the study consider externalities in some aspects but ignores it in this important dimension.

 

feels like astroturf.

 

I am just saying it sounds a little like what Toyota would want to hear. And maybe Ford too, and maybe not GM.

 

As I said above.. it may be their sponsors asked them to study a vary particular question.. which they did.

I'll add, however, the study has little to say about GM.. the model uses for PHEV30 and above are for a hypothetical pure serial PHEV -- it does not include any model that resembles a GM vehicle. While the Volt and Leaf are mentioned on page one as motivation, nothing resembling either vehichle is part of the study. That's just left to the reader to (apparently incorrectly) assume. The study is about parallel-split hybrids with pure EV ranges of 5-25 miles.

Note the study explicitly states

Of course that is buried in the study text, not mentioned in the abstract/conclusion. They do claim one can extrapolate their findings, which suggest bigger batteries are worse, to other designs, but there is actually no substance presented to back up that assertion. The conclusion is only directly supported for power-split designs with blended control. Since that is what the sponsors make, its reasonable for them to ask for a study about their design space.

The real problem is that people want to draw broader conclusion that actually supported by the actual study model -- and the authors wrote it in such a way as to enable such subtle misuse/misrepresentation.