Alternative fuels initiatives

Alternative fuels initiatives are a suggested strategy to reduce emissions^{1, 2, 3, 4, 5}. Available evidence suggests that using alternative fuels decreases emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)^{1, 6, 7, 8}, and that alternative fuel sources such as compressed natural gas, methanol, ethanol, or electricity produce significantly less air toxics emissions than conventional gasoline⁹.

Pollutant levels and emissions reductions vary for each type of alternative fuel¹⁰ and geographic regions have varying exposure levels to emissions and particulate matter¹¹. Understanding local context can support decisions about the most appropriate alternative fuels initiatives; there is not a one-size-fits-all approach for these initiatives or incentives^{1, 12}. Additional evidence is needed to determine the costs and effects of various initiatives promoting each alternative fuel.

Survey research suggests financial incentives such as subsidies or grants supporting alternative fuels have greater public support than regulations such as increased fossil fuel taxes or bans on new fossil fuel vehicle sales¹³. One study suggests alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) adoption is more likely when neighbors have an AFV¹⁴. Experts suggest that interest and investment in alternative fuel technologies has oscillated over time at least partially due to the complex interplay between policies on local, national, and international levels, and large car firms’ strategies¹⁵.

Electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles do not produce tailpipe emissions; overall GHG emissions from electric vehicle use depend on the local fuel source used to generate electricity. Reports suggest electric-drive vehicles based on batteries, plug-in hybrids, and fuel-cell technology greatly reduce or eliminate direct use of oil in transportation, and in most cases and settings significantly reduce GHG emissions compared to conventional vehicles. Electric-drive vehicles have higher initial costs, lower fuel costs, may have lower maintenance and repair costs, and in some cases can have higher insurance costs than conventional gasoline vehicles¹⁶. A Japan-based study suggests shifting to mini-sized electric vehicles would significantly reduce GHG emissions, energy and material consumption, and cost; downsizing transportation fleets could achieve similar benefits in other developed countries¹⁷. Experts suggest government policies can support emerging markets, motivate manufacturers, facilitate electric vehicle ownership and use, increase public confidence, and improve electric vehicle charging regulations¹⁶.

Case studies in California, Kentucky, and Massachusetts suggest many factors influence whether transit agencies decide to fully adopt an electric bus fleet after implementing pilot programs. In many cases, total cost analysis suggests electric buses are more cost-effective than diesel buses; however, costs are sensitive to widely varying supporting policies, annual fleet mileage, fossil fuel costs, and electricity tariffs. In California, supportive policies are in place and many local agencies report plans to fully adopt electric fleets; however, outside of California, agencies suggest the high initial cost of electric buses, oversubscribed grant programs, charging infrastructure and electricity costs, and additional operational complexity remain as barriers to fully adopting electric bus fleets¹⁸.

A California-based model suggests renewable natural gas can be encouraged through policies that develop renewable fuel and carbon pollution credit markets, offer incentives for fleets to shift to sustainable fuel trucks, and reduce connection costs for in-state renewable natural gas¹⁹. Vehicles using biofuels produce fewer GHGs than those using conventional gasoline when operating; however, analyses suggest some biofuels, especially corn ethanol, may not decrease overall GHG emissions when considering other environmental costs. For example, government support can encourage farming on previously unfarmed lands, including wetlands and forests, and corn monoculture farming typically requires lots of fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation, and energy intensive practices^{20, 21, 22}. Some government policies support traditional corn ethanol more than other biofuel alternatives, which can reduce the cost of corn ethanol for consumers more than costs for advanced biofuels or hydrogen fuel^{21, 22}. Experts also suggest subsidies for biofuels increase supply, increasing total fuel supplies and decreasing fuel prices, which may create a market rebound effect, enabling more fuel use and increasing overall GHG emissions^{21, 22, 23}.

Policymakers often support fuel standards to decrease emissions and increase development of renewable energy technologies, although there is limited evidence demonstrating how successfully such policies influence innovation²⁴. Available evidence suggests fuel standards may be less effective by themselves than policies directly affecting fuel price; however, policymakers can increase the efficiency of such policies by also including cost containment provisions that limit price volatility and increase economic efficiency of fuel standards at all levels²⁵. One study suggests state policies such as California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) may increase the effectiveness of national policies such as the Renewable Fuel Standard²⁶. Other studies suggest that overall social welfare increases more with a carbon tax than with state or national fuel standards due to efficiency costs²⁷.

As of February 2020, the National Conference for State Legislatures’ transportation funding and finance state bill tracking database has recorded 30 states that have enacted 87 bills addressing alternative fuels or electric vehicle initiatives²⁸. The U.S. Department of Energy (U.S. DOE) also provides a searchable database of federal and state laws and incentives for alternative fuels¹.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides information and resources about converting vehicles to alternative fuels as well as an alternative fuel station locator²⁹. The U.S. DOE website also includes an alternative fuel station locator and a vehicle cost calculator that compares life cycle emissions for individual vehicle models, accounting for the local context¹.

The Clean Cities Coalition, facilitated by the U.S. DOE’s Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, is a national network of nearly 100 local coalitions that support local alternative fuels initiatives and advance affordable, domestic transportation fuels, energy efficient mobility systems, and other fuel-saving technologies and practices³⁰.