A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Examining cost effectiveness of mobile source emission control measures
AbstractThe cost-effectiveness of emission control measures, usually calculated in dollars per ton of emissions reduced, is often used to determine which control measures should be implemented to meet overall emission reduction requirements. This seemingly simple cost effectiveness methodology requires making careful choices, such as whether to employ (1) user costs or societal costs, (2) manufacturer- or consumer-level costs, (3) emission reductions in non-attainment areas only or in both non-attainment and attainment areas, and (4) annual or pollution-season emission reductions. Researchers must also carefully consider how to determine baseline emissions, whether to use multiple-pollutant emission reductions, and whether to apply emission discounting. Because there are various ways to address these issues and because different studies employ different assumptions regarding costs and emission reductions, the results of cost effectiveness studies can be significantly different and can sometimes contradict one another. This paper summarizes and adjusts the cost effectiveness results from completed studies, allowing determination of the relative cost effectiveness of key mobile source emission control measures. The paper also summarizes the cost effectiveness of stationary control measures, permitting a comparison of mobile and stationary control measures. The results of this study indicate that, except for alternative-fuel vehicles (and considering a range of uncertainties), the emission control cost of many mobile source control measures is below $10,000 per ton of emissions reduced.
Examining cost effectiveness of mobile source emission control measures
AbstractThe cost-effectiveness of emission control measures, usually calculated in dollars per ton of emissions reduced, is often used to determine which control measures should be implemented to meet overall emission reduction requirements. This seemingly simple cost effectiveness methodology requires making careful choices, such as whether to employ (1) user costs or societal costs, (2) manufacturer- or consumer-level costs, (3) emission reductions in non-attainment areas only or in both non-attainment and attainment areas, and (4) annual or pollution-season emission reductions. Researchers must also carefully consider how to determine baseline emissions, whether to use multiple-pollutant emission reductions, and whether to apply emission discounting. Because there are various ways to address these issues and because different studies employ different assumptions regarding costs and emission reductions, the results of cost effectiveness studies can be significantly different and can sometimes contradict one another. This paper summarizes and adjusts the cost effectiveness results from completed studies, allowing determination of the relative cost effectiveness of key mobile source emission control measures. The paper also summarizes the cost effectiveness of stationary control measures, permitting a comparison of mobile and stationary control measures. The results of this study indicate that, except for alternative-fuel vehicles (and considering a range of uncertainties), the emission control cost of many mobile source control measures is below $10,000 per ton of emissions reduced.
Examining cost effectiveness of mobile source emission control measures
Wang, Michael Q (author)
Transport Policy ; 11 ; 155-169
2003-10-01
15 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
Examining cost effectiveness of mobile source emission control measures
Online Contents | 2004
|Cost-Effectiveness of Low Emission Vehicles Relative to Other Mobile Source Control Measures
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
|Cost-Effectiveness of Low Emission Vehicles Relative to Other Mobile Source Control Measures
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
|British Library Conference Proceedings | 1994
|Cost-Effectiveness of Wind Retrofit Measures
ASCE | 2012
|