Can proactive fuel economy strategies help automakers mitigate fuel price risk?

McManus, Walter (2006): Can proactive fuel economy strategies help automakers mitigate fuel price risk?

Abstract

Detroit automakers have opposed mandated improvements in fuel economy since legislation was first proposed in the 1970’s. Their opposition is based, among other considerations, on the assumption that their customers value fuel economy only when fuel prices are high. This paper presents the findings of our on-going research that strongly refutes this assumption. Using data on sales, prices, and attributes of vehicles in 2005, we find that consumers are willing to pay, on average, $578 per MPG for higher fuel economy. At the price of gasoline prevailing in 2005, $2.30 per gallon, the $578 per MPG that consumers are willing to pay for fuel economy implies that consumers put more weight in choosing vehicles on future fuel savings than most analysts (including ourselves) had thought. The paper incorporates these new data-driven estimates of the value of fuel economy into an automotive market simulation model that has three components: a consumer demand function that predicts consumers’ vehicle choices as functions of vehicle price, fuel price, and vehicle attributes (the new estimates of the value of fuel economy are used to set the parameters of the demand function); an engineering and economic evaluation of feasible fuel economy improvements by 2010; and a game theoretic analysis of manufacturers’ competitive interactions. Using our model, we estimated the market shares and profits of automakers in 128 separate scenarios defined by alternative plausible values for the price of fuel and consumers’ discount rates. Under the fuel price risks and the competitive risks that automakers face, our analysis concludes that a proactive strategy of pursuing fuel economy improvements— above and beyond what is required by law—would increase annual profits for Ford ($0.5 billion to $1.4 billion), GM ($0.2 billion to $0.5 billion, and DaimlerChrysler ($0.1 billion). Even if the uncertainty over fuel price were removed, all three automakers would increase profits by pursuing fuel economy improvements, though the gains are smaller with fuel at $2.00/gallon.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Institution: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute
• Language: English
• Keywords: automotive industry; automakers; fuel econnomy; willingness to pay; game theory; consumer demand for fuel economy; Corporate Average Fuel Economy
• Subjects: Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics ; Environmental and Ecological Economics > Q5 - Environmental Economics > Q59 - Other; L - Industrial Organization > L6 - Industry Studies: Manufacturing > L62 - Automobiles ; Other Transportation Equipment ; Related Parts and Equipment

References

Alson, J., B. Ellies, and D. Ganss, 2005. Interim Report: New Powertrain Technologies and Their Projected Costs. EPA420-R-05-1012. U.S. Ann Arbor, MI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division. August. Bento, Antonio M., Lawrence H. Goulder, Emeric Henry, Mark R. Jacobsen, And Roger H. Von Haefen (2005) “Distributional and Efficiency Impacts of Gasoline Taxes: An Econometrically-Based Multi-Market Study,” American Economic Association Papers And Proceedings May 2005 Berry, Steven, James Levinson, and Ariel Pakes. (1995) “Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium.” Econometrica, 1995, 63(4), pp. 841–90. Berry, S., J. Levinsohn, and A. Pakes. (2004) “Differentiated Products Demand Systems from a Combination of Micro and Macro Data: The New Vehicle Market,” Journal of Political Economy 112, 68-105. Congressional Budget Office, (2003) “The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax”. Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC. DeCicco, J., F. An, and M. Ross, ACEEE, 2001. “Technical Options for Improving the Fuel Economy of U.S. Cars and Light Trucks by 2010-2015,” American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. DOE 1995. “Energy Conservation Trends: Understanding the Factors Affecting Conservation Gains and Their Implications for Policy Development.” Report DOE/PO- 0034. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Policy. April. EEA 2005. “Fuel Economy Potential for 2010 Light Duty Trucks,” prepared for DOE and DOT, Energy and Environmental Analysis. Espey, M. and Nair, S., “Automobile Fuel Economy: What is it Worth?” Contemporary Economic Policy (Western Economic Association). Vol. 23, No. 3, July 2005, 317-323. Espey, M., “Do Consumers Value Fuel Economy?” Regulation (Cato Institute), Winter 2005-2006, 8-10. Fudenberg, Drew and Jean Tirole (1991) “Game Theory,” MIT Press. David L. Greene (2001) “TAFV: Alternative Fuels And Vehicles Choice Model Documentation” Center for Transportation Analysis Oak Ridge National Laboratory July 2001 Greene, D.L., and Y. Fan, ORNL 1994. “Transportation Energy Efficiency Trends, 1972- 1992.” Report ORNL-6828. Oak Ridge, TN: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis. December. Greene, D.L., Duleep, K.G., and McManus, W.S., “Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Market,” ORNL Report, August 2004. Griliches, Z. (1961). “Hedonic Price Indexes for Automobiles: An econometric Analysis of Quality Change”, in The Price Statistics of the Federal Government, New York, the National Bureau of Economic Research. Hammett, P. Flynn, M., and Sims, M., “Fuel-saving Technologies and Facility Conversion: Costs, Benefits, and Incentives,” Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, November 2004. Heavenrich, R.M, EPA 2005. Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends, 1975 through 2005. Ann Arbor, MI: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Advanced Technology Division. July. Johnson, David S., Reed, Stephen B., and Stewart, Kenneth J. “Price measurement in the United States: A decade after the Boskin Report,” Monthly Labor Review, May 2006. Kleit, A. ,“Impacts of Long-Range Increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard,” Economic Inquiry 42:2 (April 2004) 279-294. (Published version of “Short- and Long-Range Impacts of Increases in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standard,” report for the General Motors Corporation, January 2002.) Kurani, K.S., and T. Turrentine, 2004, “Automobile Buyer Decisions about Fuel Economy and Fuel Efficiency,” ITS-RR-04-31, University of California Institute of Transportation Studies Report, Sept. 1. McFadden, D., “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior,” in P. In Zarembka, Frontiers in Econometrics (New York: Academic Press, 1973). McManus, Walter S., Alan Baum, Roland Hwang, Daniel D. Luria, and Gautam Barua, “IN THE TANK How Oil Prices Threaten Automakers’ Profits and Jobs,” Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, University nof Michigan Transportation Research Institute, July 2005. McManus, W.S., “The Effects of Higher Gasoline Prices on U.S.Light Vehicle Sales, Prices, and Variable Profits by Segment and Manufacturer Group, 2001 and 2004,” Office for the Study of Automotive Transportation, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, May 23, 2005. NAS 2002. Effectveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, report by the National Research Council, Washington, DC, National Academy Press. Nash, John (1950) "Equilibrium Points in N-person Games" Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. National Commission on Energy Policy, “Ending the Energy Stalemate, A Bipartisan Strategy to Meet America’s Energy Challenges,” December 2004. NESCCAF 2004. “Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Light-Duty Motor Vehicles.” Northeast States Center for a Clean Air Future. September. NRC, 2002. “Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards.” National Research Council, Washington, DC, National Academy Press. Parry, Ian W.H., Carolyn Fischer, and Winston Harrington (2004) “Should Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards Be Tightened?” December 2004 RFF DP 04-53 Rawls, John, (1971) “A Theory of Justice,” The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Santini, D. and Vyas, A., (2005) “Suggestions for a New Vehicle Choice Model Simulating Advanced Vehicles Introduction Decisions (AVID): Structure and Coefficients,” Argonne National Laboratory, August 2005. Train, K.E. and Winston, C., (2006) “Vehicle Choice Behavior and the Declining Market Share of U.S. Automakers” (2006) Forthcoming, International Economic Review. Train, Kenneth E. (2003). “Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation.” Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Weiss, M., et al, MIT 2000.., On the Road in 2020: A Life-cycle analysis of new automobile technologies. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. October. Kenneth E. Train Clifford Winston (2004) “Vehicle Choice Behavior And The Declining Market Share Of U.S. Automakers,” U.C. Berkeley Brookings Institution July 2004 Williams, H.C.W.L., (1977) “On the Formulation of Travel Demand Models and Economic Evaluation Measures of User Benefit,” Environment and Planning, 9A, No.3, pp.285-344, 1977. Feng, Ye; Fullerton, Don and Gan, Li. (2004) “Vehicle Choices, Miles Driven and Pollution Policies,” Working paper, University of Texas at Austin, July 2004. Ye Feng Don Fullerton Li Gan (2005) “Vehicle Choices, Miles Driven And Pollution Policies,” Working Paper 11553 National Bureau Of Economic Research August 2005.