Last week’s Supreme Court decision to decline an appeal on the constitutionality of California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) is further evidence that efforts to block policies bringing alternative fuels to market are missing the big picture. California voters, and their Legislature and Governor, have acted decisively and repeatedly to be leaders in addressing climate change through an ambitious set of carbon reduction policies, including maintaining the state’s goal to promote innovation in fuels and vehicles. California policies align with national polling which shows that two-thirds of Americans are concerned about climate change and support President Obama’s new climate rules. Politically, climate policy will get increased backing over time given that the Millennial generation is 76 percent more likely than their parents to favor environmental action.

Already, Millennials are more inclined to favor alternatives such as ride sharing and living densely. These new patterns could gain more momentum if war or other disasters or simply traffic congestion reduce the utility of individual oil-based car ownership in U.S. urban areas. Instead of buying cars and fuels, we could see a major transformation in how transportation services are delivered and priced in the next several decades. Automobile and technology companies understand the necessity of staying ahead of such trends. They are experimenting with innovative new business models in delivering transportation services and technology, including Daimler and BMW’s all electric car sharing programs as well as new entrants such as Uber and Lyft.

The Supreme Court’s decision that the LCFS will stand should be viewed as a signal to all stakeholders that now is the time for cooperation, transparency and creativity to facilitate carbon reductions in the transportation fuel sector, the largest contributor of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Customers and shareholders alike will increasingly be looking to industry leaders for alternative fuels solutions. Geopolitical unrest and severe weather will continue to disrupt fuel supply chains, perhaps more dramatically in the future, and the public will demand a response. Though LCFS has encouraged California’s refiners to buy cleaner, alternative fuels as they become available, most still don’t think returns are sufficient to make major investments of their own capital in clean fuels development. But consumers may demand diversity if they feel or perceive increasing price and supply insecurity in traditional fuel supplies.  A future shock to supply and price – and especially one akin to a 1973-style shortage – could trigger a permanent loss in demand for gasoline and diesel over time.

To date, some large energy firms operating in or marketing to California have taken a relatively passive role towards investing to meet the LCFS. With the Supreme Court declining to review the LCFS challenge, now is the time for a broader number of industry players to work collaboratively with policymakers, academics and the environmental community to find the most feasible pathways for the LCFS to succeed. Early industry experiments in drop-in biofuels were relatively small compared to the industry’s operations and have been generally unsustained. Some companies, such as Valero Energy Corporation remain more firmly in the game, having positioned itself with more than one billion dollars in renewable fuels assets and research including 11 state-of-the-art ethanol plants (with more than 1.3 billion gallons of ethanol production). Clean Energy also has a strong alternative fuel presence with its network of natural gas fueling stations.

The intention of the LCFS is to promote investment in these alternatives without picking winners, and hopefully, in its wake ultimately lower prices for fuels, and create choice for consumers. Innovative technologies are emerging from new agriculture and technology businesses in California but not sufficiently with oil and gas companies, who tend to shun high R & D spending in general. R & D spending by oil and gas firms as a percentage of total revenue averages about 0.3%, far lower than most other industries.

In fairness, industry’s warnings that cellulosic ethanol will not be sufficiently available to contribute to California’s 2020 targets will likely be correct. California regulators will have to take that into account, but also need to weigh heavily the need for regulatory certainty for the many companies who have made billions of dollars in investments in technologies and fuels that are succeeding. There is strong evidence that other fuels could pick up the slack where cellulosic ethanol might be falling short, including renewable diesel, electricity, natural gas in trucking, and other biogas/biofuels alternatives. UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis) analysis shows that the LCFS is replacing oil with cleaner-burning fuels in cars and trucks, with the carbon emissions reduction in the first two and a half years equal to taking 500,000 vehicles off the road.

To be accurate, even if California has not necessarily elicited the production of more biofuels since the LCFS was implemented in 2011, it certainly elicited better biofuels. ITS-Davis research shows California’s LCFS has incentivized the de-carbonization of the overall U.S. biofuels supply chain by rewarding in particular the production and use of waste-based biofuels. From 2011 through 2013, California expanded the use of low-carbon alternative fuels (including non-biofuels) by 0.22 billion gasoline gallon equivalents (GGE)/year, and reduced total carbon emissions by 6.4 million MT CO₂e, taking close to a million cars off the road for a year. (LCFS Status Review, July 2014)

To date, the LCFS is generating credits far in excess of deficits (46 percent in the first half of 2013). Granted, some fuel shuffling is taking place with sugar and sorghum biofuels and cleaner biodiesel being shipped to California to gain LCFS credits. This shuffling is pushing higher carbon U.S.-based corn ethanol and more carbon intensive biodiesel to elsewhere in the United States, and not to California. However, besides encouraging improvements to existing biofuel facilities and new bio-digester and waste-based biofuel start-ups, the LCFS requirement has succeeded in incentivizing major industry players to venture into alternative fuels, including Waste Management, Clean Energy, and Southern California Gas Company. These companies, among others, are actively investing in new natural gas or biogas fuels and fueling infrastructure in the state.

The oil and gas industry has invested hundreds of billions of dollars in conventional and unconventional petroleum. Just as the oil industry response to clean air rules in the 1980s increased its productivity and profitability, so a broadening of lower carbon business models will position companies for a more resilient future that will include a large number of unpredictable uncertainties involving reliability of feedstock supplies, infrastructure security, a growing worldwide appetite for air quality regulation (if not carbon), and changes in consumer lifestyles and preferences.

Change is afoot. The U.S. market share of electric cars is increasing with more than a third of national sales occurring in California. Each additional gasoline gallon equivalent of electricity used in cars displaces three gallons of gasoline at a quarter of the price and one-third the carbon emissions, compared to gasoline. California cities and ports currently have some of the worst air quality in the country, which natural gas trucks can address by lowering particulate and carbon pollution by 10-20 percent, or even up to 90 percent of carbon emissions if biogas is utilized.

To meet California’s ambitious 2020 LCFS carbon intensity goal, the state will need to facilitate roughly an additional 1.9 billion GGE/year low-carbon fuels (or less if more electricity and hydrogen are deployed since they are more efficient).  This is not a trivial task.  Some NGOs are confident the target can be met. The oil industry is not.

Over the long term, we agree new technologies are needed for the LCFS to be successful. The question is: What is the best way to achieve that?

While some companies prefer policies that roll back the standard, policymakers are looking for more creative options. Chicken-egg infrastructure constraints continue to dominate the situation, leaving second best solutions like temporarily capping LCFS credit prices or delaying targets. The oil industry needs to come forward with more constructive proposals to improve its participation in diversifying and expanding fueling investments in line with technology efforts by GE, Tesla Motors, Toyota, and First Element Fuel. Rather than just arguing that targets must be abandoned because cellulosic technology is advancing more slowly than anticipated, the industry needs to offer concrete proposals for RD&D and infrastructure investments that they would be willing to commit to prospectively, were the state to respond constructively as well.

Government and academic energy models (and Wall Street reports) show oil companies risk measurable market share losses in the future fuels markets if they do not embrace  innovation in technology and business models. Tesla Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan and Toyota are investing in their own charging and hydrogen refueling stations. They are collaborating with governments and universities in finding solutions to infrastructure challenges. Home fueling technologies could also proliferate.  Low carbon rulemaking is driving innovation and beginning to contribute strongly to California’s gross domestic product and tech industry leadership. The refining and marketing industry needs to cooperate instead of threatening doom and gloom.

Computing power and innovation have been driving dramatic change across other industries. The transportation fuels industry is not likely to be an exception. Changing consumer preferences and government policies aimed at reducing pollution and enhancing energy security are gaining momentum. This will spell dramatic adjustments to gasoline and diesel markets, giving the oil industry impetus for innovation and new strategies.

As last week’s Supreme Court news continues to reverberate, California’s commitment to reduce air pollution and carbon emissions from transportation fuels remains strong and its LCFS can serve as a model policy to foster innovation and bring clean fuels to the market that will ultimately benefit the consumers.

By late this month or early July, Mercedes-Benz is set to start shipping its first mass-produced pure electric vehicle in the U.S. – the B-Class Electric Drive – joining producers like BMW, Nissan and Tesla, Forbes Magazine reported yesterday.  Forbes stated this is another sign of the “fast growing plug-in electric vehicle market,” with rising demand for electric vehicles and global PEV sales expected to reach more than “2.7 million units by 2018.”

In California, the U.S. and across the globe, we are at a turning point for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs)—as electric transportation options become technologically diverse and more available and attractive to consumers.

In the last year, global registrations of electric vehicles from the first three years of the market reached 500,000 units. The U.S. plays a dominant role, with 200,000 vehicles registered, more than one-third of those in California.

Under the classic “diffusion” theory, all new technologies—from smartphones to air conditioners— take years to make an impact with consumers, spreading from early “innovators” to the larger populace.  However, within the first 36 months of large-scale availability, PEV sales are stronger than gas-electric hybrid cars were in the same time frame.

Part of the faster adoption is due to varied vehicles that have hit the market, with PEVs encompassing a broad range of technologies and charging needs:

• Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs – i.e. Ford Fusion); similar to HEVs, but with bigger batteries and the ability to store electricity from plugging into an outlet.
• Extended Range Electric Vehicles (EREVs – i.e. Chevy Volt); similar to PHEVs, with increased electric range.
• Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs – i.e. Nissan LEAF); utilize rechargeable battery packs
• BEVx: (BMW i3 with range extender); similar to BEVs, but with a small internal combustion (ICE) engine to extend driving range
• “Large Battery BEV” (Tesla Model S); BEVs with range similar to gasoline vehicles.

Some of these vehicles will become available in an even more advanced, second-generation design in the next few years.

But the diverse and innovative electric vehicle sector also faces hurdles to broader acceptance and greater market adoption.

Before incentives, the average ticket price of a PEV is higher than that of traditional gas vehicles—with current buyers affluent and often very affluent. Women, who purchase and influence car purchases at a high rate (60 to 80 percent) are poorly represented in the PEV market.  Charging infrastructure for electric vehicles remains a challenge, with increasing congestion at free public charging stations. To help bolster electric vehicle sales, more used vehicle inventory is crucial, with used vehicles representing two-thirds of all U.S. car purchases; the expected increased availability of formerly leased PEVs—50 percent of the current PEV market— may help do that.

The next buyers of PEVs are likely to be the current “innovator” owners, and their “fast follower” neighbors clustered in similar regional geographic pockets. These next buyers will need more optimized charging infrastructure and better customer support from dealers who are increasingly learning how to market these vehicles.

We’re just beginning to observe and measure the development of the electric vehicle market. Challenges to wider commercialization lie ahead. And as we’ve observed at this foundational stage, the “kick start” of incentives is integral to the PEV market evolution— both domestically and internationally. Incentives vary by state, and by country, but may include tax credits, rebates, free parking, access to high occupancy vehicle lanes, and discounts on electricity.

California continues to lead the way on this “next wave” of electric transportation, with a regulatory goal of 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2025.   Despite the challenges, the continuing growth and technological sophistication of electric vehicles suggest there’s a lot of progress to follow.

# # #

For more information on “Catching the Second Wave of the Plug-in Electric Vehicle Market” webinar, please see these links below.

Click here to listen to the webinar by Dr. Tom Turrentine and Dr. Gil Tal.
Click here to read the briefing paper on which the webinar is based.
Click here to download the webinar slides

This represents the second in a UC Davis webinar series offered jointly by the NextSTEPS (Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways) research consortium and the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy.

Yesterday’s action by the U.S. EPA to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from coal-fired power plants brings the nation one step closer to reducing emissions 30 percent by 2030 from 2005 levels. So what other actions will be needed to meet long-term climate goals? And what will they cost? Nobody has a crystal ball, but UC Davis experts, along with other academics and policymakers, developed a series of scenarios that may help to answer these questions. While our research is focused on California, many insights are applicable to other regions and the nation. The timing of this research is particularly relevant as the California Air Resources Board looks to set a mid-term target (i.e. 2030), as outlined in the first update to the AB 32 climate change scoping plan, a document released last month.

California already has a near-term GHG target to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and a comprehensive program underway for meeting the requirement pursuant to AB 32. It also has an ambitious long-term goal to reduce emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.

Examining 10 different models about California’s energy and GHG future, our work is the California Climate Policy Modeling (CCPM) project. It brings together UC Davis researchers from the Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy and the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways (NextSTEPS) program of the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis) – with colleagues from UC Berkeley, Stanford University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory and private consulting firm E3.

What do the models show us about the 2030 timeframe? The scenarios show the potential to reduce GHG emissions 8-52 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 through a combination of strategies. These strategies include energy efficiency, clean and renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, and low-carbon transportation solutions. The annual emissions in 2030 range from 208-396 million metric tonnes (MMT) of CO2 equivalents per year in these scenarios. Demonstrating the potential significance of early reductions, cumulative emissions range widely from 6,492-9,205 MMT (through 2030) and 10,357-14,394 MMT (through 2050). The annual emissions reductions and cumulative emissions growth modeled in these scenarios is shown in the graph below.

We presented these scenarios to representatives from the Governor’s office, California state agencies and other interested stakeholders and gained several important insights: 1) Focusing on reducing total cumulative emissions between now and 2050 – rather than focusing on meeting the specific 2050 reduction target – can provide greater climate benefits; 2) We need to dramatically increase the use of decarbonized energy carriers like electricity and hydrogen for transportation, and to provide heat for buildings and industrial processes to meet our emissions reduction goals; and 3) Even if the energy sector is cleaned up so its emissions are zero, without new policy, emissions from other non-energy sectors including agriculture and from high-global-warming-potential gases will exceed California’s 2050 GHG goal.

Further information on the models and scenarios presented at the CCPM forum can be found here. Also available are a technical brief, “Energy and Climate Experts Find Wide Range of 2030 Emissions Targets on Path to 2050” and a full report, “Summary of California Climate Policy Modeling Forum” along with a webinar summarizing the findings of the forum and the presentation from the forum.

Another key insight from the recent forum: We all would like more dialogue. Policymakers would like to see more modeling of explicit policies so they can better understand their effects. Climate modelers need more up-to-date information about forthcoming policies — and access to the state’s latest data — so we can provide relevant analysis and insight to inform policymakers and the policy process.

The EPA’s Clean Power Plan policy is a step toward the right direction. California’s policies target all sectors at the same time, while the federal’s Clean Power Plan only targets the electric sector in a moderate fashion. More coordination and commitments will be needed to expand the federal Clean Power Plan policy to steer other sectors toward a more comprehensive long-term climate goal. California has much to offer in terms of what we’ve achieved today, as well as our efforts in learning how to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. But, most importantly, all of us – policymakers, researchers, educators, NGOs, investors, and business partners – must work together if we want to pursue a cleaner, affordable, low-carbon, and climate-safe future.

The signing this week of a landmark Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UC Davis and the China Automotive Technology and Research Center (CATARC) on clean vehicle adoption comes at an opportune time.  China is experiencing explosive expansion in its vehicles market. At the same time, China’s leaders are eager to play a global role in sustainable transport and are looking for partners. China’s choice of UC Davis and California state agency representatives as partners in its “new energy” vehicles initiative represents a milestone in global transportation policy. Urban congestion contributes significantly to hazardous smog in major cities. And the issues are global: we are entering a critical stage in worldwide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas and other mobile source emissions.

Five years ago, I co-authored a book about our world’s untenable future, hurtling toward two billion cars. I wrote: “From Paris to Fresno, and Deli to Shanghai, conventional motorization, conventional vehicles and conventional fuels are choking cities, literally and figuratively.” That book was a call to action for collaborative efforts to “reinvent vehicles, fuels and mobility.”*

This week’s announcement provides an important answer to that call. The new China–U.S. ZEV Policy Lab MOU focuses on joint research and cooperatiofn between UC Davis and CATARC, the administrative body that oversees and regulates many activities of the auto industry in China. It represents a unique partnership between our institutions, each a leader in technology and policies on zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) – or new energy vehicles, as they’re called in China.  The accord reflects the history and ongoing cooperation and information exchange between leaders of the CATARC and UC Davis transportation and energy programs. The primary partners to the MOU are the Institute of Transportation Studies (ITS-Davis), the UC Davis Policy Institute for Energy, Environment and the Economy, and CATARC. Two ITS-Davis centers—the China Center for Energy and Transportation (C-CET) and the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle (PH&EV) Research Center— will play integral roles. Led by Director Yunshi Wang, who attended the MOU’s signing in China, C-CET is the only China-focused research center on transportation and energy in North America. The policy lab’s advisory board will be co-chaired by representatives of the California Air Resources Board, the world’s leader on clean vehicle policies, and the National Development and Reform Commission, a major Chinese government agency.

The collaboration will help expand the global market for ZEVs by providing intellectual support for the design of ZEV policies and the analysis of consumer markets, including demand for charging stations, different types of ZEV technologies, and effectiveness of incentives.

In the early stages of developing the China-U.S. ZEV Policy Lab, the partners discussed California’s groundbreaking ZEV regulation and the lessons learned from almost 25 years of implementation. Governor Jerry Brown’s comprehensive ZEV Action Plan was studied but discussions covered the full suite of vehicle and fuel policies that are shaping California’s clean transportation future and policies that have been implemented to date in China.

From these first meetings and subsequent dialogue, four specific activities of the ZEV Policy Lab will be pursued in collaboration:

1. Conduct joint policy research, share best practices and explore potential ZEV policy collaboration and implementation.

2. Conduct consumer behavior studies. UC Davis is a leader in consumer response to electric and other alternative fuel vehicles. This collaboration will result in the first major studies of Chinese consumer response to advanced energy vehicles.

3. Train advanced vehicle researchers and leaders in California and China.

4. Inform Chinese regional and central government officials on California’s ZEV and related vehicle policies, and exchange information between California and China regarding lessons learned.

China’s vehicle population is expanding rapidly, which presents both opportunities and challenges for the country and the world. In a 2011 paper, Yunshi and I, with graduate student researcher Jacob Teeter, forecasted vehicle population rates to grow by 13-17 percent per year, roughly double the rate for China forecasted by others.

China is now the world’s largest auto market. In 2013, its vehicle sales approached 22 million, topping U.S. 2013 light-duty vehicle sales of 15.6 million.

In the past year, China’s leadership has already proposed increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions standards and actively promoted electric vehicles (EVs).  In January, the government outlined its latest fuel economy proposal, Phase 4, for reductions in fleet average fuel consumption for new cars sold in China 2016-2020. And in February, it announced plans to extend electric vehicle incentives.

Then in July, China set a goal for 30 percent of all government fleet vehicle purchases to be EVs by 2016. It also announced new financial incentives for installation of EV charging.

In a new working paper “China’s Electric Car Frustrations” Yunshi and I with Zheng “Marco” Wan offer some analysis on reasons the central government’s laudable ambitions to build a large EV industry and market are not being realized as fast as hoped: local protectionism, shifting vehicle technology strategies, limited charging infrastructure, and cautious behavior of battery and automotive manufacturers. Both California and China will need a broader set of policies, incentives and strategies to overcome consumer and industry resistance and the lack of a critically needed widespread charging infrastructure. California has made progress in the past year or two, and this initial success will give the policy lab a good launching point.

The policy lab will facilitate continued discussion on complex topics such as these. It will also serve as a formal structure for visiting researchers here at UC Davis, and vice versa. This year, we’ve been lucky to have the insights of a distinguished visiting scholar from China:  Dr. Yaodong Shi, Deputy Director-General in the Department of Industrial Economics’ Development Research Center for the State Council, a prominent Chinese government think tank. Dr. Shi is currently working on two research topics: challenges and options associated with natural gas transportation in China, and what China can learn about EV development from California.

The policy lab is an important milestone in the global effort to accelerate clean vehicle development. The CATARC-UC Davis collaboration will help spur efforts in California, the United States and China to promote best practices and policy initiatives.  We are excited to join with our partners in this major effort to bring about a more sustainable transportation system that provides clean, affordable mobility to the world.

Key UC Davis documents:

Read the UC Davis September 8, 2014 press release announcing the accord, and the MOU.

Top press coverage:

ClimateWire, Sacramento Bee, KGO Bay Area AM 810 News Radio

Additional Reading:

In the spirit of continued cooperation, another of my ITS-Davis colleagues, Lew Fulton, recently returned from another meeting in China sponsored by Global Fuel Economy Initiative (GFEI), the International Council on Clean Transportation and China’s CATARC.  Fulton spoke about GFEI’s goal of doubling fuel economy of new passenger vehicles by 2030.

“Fuel Economy State of the World 2014: The World is Shifting into Gear on Fuel Economy,” FIA Foundation report edited by Lew Fulton and Sheila Watson (FIA Foundation) with various contributors.

*Two Billion Cars: Driving Toward Sustainability, Daniel Sperling and Deborah Gordon, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Zero Emission Market Acceleration Partnerships (MAP) is a new initiative to make available UC Davis’ 25 years of interdisciplinary expertise and research in vehicles, fuels and market response to cities and states to help them meet their sustainable transportation goals. It brings together local and state governmental, nongovernmental and research institutions from around the nation to integrate best practices and tackle challenges. For more information about the Zero Emission MAP partnership click here.

Photo:

Yunshi Wang, Director of the China Center for Energy and Transportation at UC Davis, and Zhixin Wu, Deputy Director of the China Automotive Technology and Research Center shake hands in Tianjin, China as Alberto Ayala (far left), Deputy Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, and Gang Li (far right), Department Chief of the Industry Coordination Bureau of the National Development and Reform Commission look on during a signing ceremony Sept. 6. Credit: China Automotive Technology and Research Center/photo

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just released a report in Berlin that details what needs to be done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC is a scientific body commissioned by the United Nations to review and assess the most recent scientific, technical and socioeconomic information regarding climate change.

Why am I focusing on news from Germany? As a member of one of the IPCC’s scientific working groups, I was honored to be one of the lead authors behind the transportation chapter of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report. Two of my fellow ITS-Davis colleagues, Lew Fulton and Richard Plevin, joined me as co-authors for this chapter. We believe UC Davis was the only organization with three experts invited to participate on a single chapter (rarely was there even three from any single country…. though I confess it was serendipity, or perhaps good recruiting by us; Lew was a researcher at the International Energy Agency when he was appointed and Rich was with UC Berkeley).

ITS-Davis research cited in the IPCC assessment included 32 papers, reports, and books on market analyses of plug-in electric vehicles; lifecycle analyses of biofuels, hydrogen, electric vehicles, and high speed rail; low carbon fuel policies; land use and other effects of biofuels; strategies to reduce vehicle use; California’s policy; transportation in developing countries; and more.

ITS-Davis is uniquely situated to inform and educate. Not only are we a world leader in sustainable transportation, but ITS-Davis plays a pivotal role in helping California adopt the most comprehensive set of climate change policies in the world, with a special focus on transportation. California has a goal of 80 percent reduction in total emissions by 2050, and 1.5 million zero-emission vehicles on California roads by 2025. The State has a adopted a portfolio of policies, combining a carbon cap and trade program with standards and incentives for purchasing vehicle efficiency, zero emission vehicles, low carbon fuels, urban land use and mobility, clean electricity and more. These innovative policies combine “carrots and sticks”—harnessing market forces and imposing regulations—and also encourage the development for building electricity and hydrogen infrastructure. To date, results have been mixed, but California continues to be a model and leader.

In 2010, the transportation sector globally accounted for 27 percent of final energy use and about the same percentage of CO2 (but a much higher 40 percent in California). The new IPCC report asserts that growth in greenhouse gases from transportation could be greatly reduced, more so than was anticipated in the previous IPCC assessment report, seven years earlier. The report notes that huge advances are being made in vehicle efficiency with a transition anticipated to electric and hydrogen vehicles. Projected energy efficiency improvements in vehicles of 30 to 50 percent are anticipated by 2030 compared to 2010, depending on the transport mode and vehicle type. Behavioral changes and integrated urban planning could also make similar size contributions, assuming the right public policies are put into practice.

But this positive GHG reduction story is undermined by the oil renaissance, with vast new investments being made in shale oil, oil sands, and heavy oil.

California’s experience shows that opportunities for reducing carbon emissions in transportation are becoming more attractive and accepted due to advances in efficiency and electric-drive vehicles changes in travel behavior. ITS-Davis analysis shows that a portfolio of different policies and technologies are needed to achieve large reductions. No one technology will be sufficient to reach carbon reduction attainment.

Since the IPCC only publishes its report once every seven years, the key findings on mitigating climate change in the transportation sector will be studied and referenced for years to come. As we consider the importance of reducing carbon emissions, policy analysis backed by scientific research should provide the foundation for developing informed policy decisions. We are proud that ITS-Davis plays a leading role in building the scientific foundation of knowledge and bringing that knowledge to the policy process.