Articles by Eric de Place

New transportation proposals to ease energy dependence

This is one of those weeks when it feels like things are changing fast. Here are two stories that caught my attention:

1. A panel organized by Congress -- the melodically-named National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission -- just called for higher federal gas taxes. In fact, they recommend a 40-cent-per-gallon hike. It sounds like the tax would go mainly to repair and maintain current road infrastructure rather than road expansion. The panel also recommended a bevy of other fees, including tolling, congestion pricing, weight fees, and so on. And they recommended big investments in transit and other alternatives too. (Via Erica at Slog.)


2. Meanwhile, British Columbia continues to lead. Not only is the province considering a carbon tax, but the provincial government just released a $14 billion transit plan. That's $14 billion just for transit. In fairness, however, not everyone in B.C. is thrilled by the proposal. As Andrew points out on the Livable Region blog, the transit projects may be delayed until after some major road-building work is completed.

Why the West should worry about transportation emissions

Well, Clark and I are traveling to Portland for a batch of meetings related to the Western Climate Initiative.

On the off chance that you'll miss us, I thought I'd share some of what we're working on with WCI. Our biggest obsession right now is transportation fuels. Namely, we believe it's critically important that transportation fuels be covered by an "upstream" cap in the first phase of the program.

Here's more:

Why should the WCI cover transportation fuels in an economy-wide cap?

More than half of all fossil fuel emissions in the WCI states come from transportation. In contrast, electricity generation represents 26 percent of fossil fuel CO2 in the region -- only about half of the emissions from the transportation sector.

If the WCI region is to reduce its emissions by 80 percent by 2050, it will have to start dealing with transportation as soon as possible.

Is it complicated to cap transportation fuels?

It's actually fairly straightforward to include transportation fuels in an economy-wide cap. As with all aspects of cap-and-trade, the politics may be tricky. But technically, covering transportation fuels may be simpler than electricity -- and certainly simpler than load-based regulation of the electricity sector.

How would it work?

The fuel supply chain has several "choke points," well upstream from consumers and filling stations. At a chosen choke point, fuel handlers -- either purchasers or sellers -- would be required to track fuel volumes, and obtain emissions permits for the carbon that will be released when those fuels are burned.

What "choke points" would work for transportation fuels?

We'd suggest two possibilities:

Cures for congestion can come cheap

When I was a little kid, I remember being stuck in gridlock on I-5. (Seattle had congested freeways even back in the 1970s, shocking as that sounds.) And I remember being perplexed that all the cars would slow down in heavy traffic. Instead of spacing out so far, I wondered, why couldn't they all just maintain 55 miles per hour and drive inches apart. As long as everyone agreed to drive the same speed and not hit the brakes, heavy traffic wouldn't require us to slow down. Right?

My parents didn't get it. Typical parents.

When is a Tundra a better buy than a Prius?

This never fails to fascinate me:

The chart shows how much fuel is consumed over 15,000 miles by cars of different fuel efficiencies.

The curve matters a lot. It means that from the perspective of fuel conservation, it's not terribly important to trade in your Honda Civic to buy a Prius. But it's hugely important to trade in your Dodge Durango for a Toyota Tacoma.

I'll use some rough numbers to illustrate. You trade in your Civic, which averages about 32 miles per gallon, and buy a Prius, which gets a whopping 47 mpg. You've bumped up by 15 mpg -- a big deal, right?

Sort of. Over the next 15,000 miles of driving, you'll have reduced your fuel consumption by 150 gallons. That's fine. But consider what happens when you upgrade your SUV. That's where the real action is.