A March 2015 White Paper published by the ICCT and funded by the Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC) looked at eight different vehicle replacement programs, reviewing case studies from the U.S., China, Mexico, Germany, and Chile.
This paper describes the general goal of vehicle replacement programs as “seek[ing] to entirely replace older and gross emitting vehicles with newer, more efficient, and environmentally friendly vehicles.” (ICCT 1).
This paper clarifies that though older, high-emitting vehicles do not normally make up a large share of a country’s vehicle fleet, the negative impact that this subset of vehicles has on the environment is disproportionate to its fleet share.
Given the desire to reduce transportation-related emissions, this paper seeks to generalize best practices for vehicle replacement programs. It asks, what aspects of these programs worked well across multiple contexts? How can one build a program that maximizes environmental impact? How can one maximize uptake?
This paper is the first to admit that the best practices it identifies in this paper are not meant to be hard and fast rules, but rather up to interpretation pending local context.
As this paper demonstrates, the idea of vehicle replacement is not a new policy initiative, but rather, the SHiFT program comes from a long lineage of programs targetting “clunkers” and advocating for their removal from roadways as an emissions reduction strategy. While the ICCT paper focuses on vehicle replacement programs specifically, SHiFT positions itself less as a vehicle replacement program and moreso a vehicle retirement program.
SHiFT works to ensure that vehicles coming off the road do not cause further damage. By shining a light on vehicles that are removed from the road, the program can make sure these vehicles are recycled and held to the highest standards throughout the process.
Despite this differential, this white paper summary will review the ICCT’s best practices and use them to evaluate the SHiFT program as it exists in its current form.
The first of the ICCT’s five best practices makes a great deal of sense. What would be the point of removing high-emitting vehicles if they are being replaced with vehicles that emit even more pollutants? The tricky part of achieving this is that reported emissions can often be inaccurate on account of the reporting bodies (see blog on emissions procedures) or simply because the technology to test emissions fails to replicate real world driving circumstances.
SHiFT also has a digital advisory tool in development (see left) that aims to assist in vehicle-purchasing related decision-making towards the most environmentally beneficial outcome possible. This tool asks users to input their current vehicle, information on its condition, and a bit about their transportation use-case. They are then able to compare their current vehicle directly to the vehicle they are planning on purchasing or better yet, are able to explore how utilizing public transportation will affect their environmental impact. The tool gives users an informed answer, in natural language, on whether switching to their intended new vehicle will, in fact, reduce emissions or if it may be better to retain their current vehicle for additional time.
The second of the ICCT’s five best practices deals with program impact. A vehicle retirement program’s measured impact can be grossly overstated if there are no mechanisms in place to mitigate this dynamic.
This over-estimation can happen if a program unknowingly takes already out-of-commission vehicles out of peoples’ backyards and driveways. The fact that these vehicles are no longer actively polluting at the point of retirement can cause programs to overestimate the impact of their work. The SHiFT program does not shy away from these types of vehicles, but works to remove vehicles currently in operation off of the road.
Program impact can also be overestimated if it fails to factor in users’ next steps. Going hand-in-hand with SHiFT’s Car Calculator tool, SHiFT aims to gather more information on what program users are deciding to do after they retire their vehicle with SHiFT. Donors are asked to fill out a survey and to indicate their transportation plans after retiring their vehicle through SHiFT. While SHiFT’s current quantification of its impact on carbon reduction does not take into account donors’ next steps, this information is being gathered with the intention that this data can be used to better estimate program impact.
The ICCT says it is hugely important that policymakers closely monitor “guarantees on the fate (e.g., destruction and recycling) of the replaced vehicles” (p. 1). In other words, the program must ensure that vehicles are actually retired from the road, and not resold via another pathway.
The 2009 Cash 4 Clunkers program did this effectively, using force to do so. By requiring recyclers to pour liquid glass in vehicle engines, there was absolute assurance that these engines would not return to the road. The downside of a forceful approach like this is that it ruined many reusable parts in the process.
SHiFT takes a different approach to program compliance, but it remains a tricky balance to strike. Rather than mandating specific destruction techniques, SHiFT relies on its relationships to its trusted recycling partners, backed by their mandatory signature on a binding contract that must be completed with each purchase of a SHiFT vehicle.
In order to get the public on board with a vehicle retirement program, the ICCT determines that fiscal incentives should be sufficient. The catch-22 of this is that in order to attract investment for such a program, potential for and achievement of widespread interest and participation must be proven.
Donors are eligible to recieve a tax credit for donating their vehicle to the non-profit associated with this program (ARA’s Automotive Recycling Training Institute). SHiFT does not offer donors fiscal incentives to support future transportation decisions. SHiFT is exploring options to be contracted out by state vehicle replacement programs, in which alternative fiscal incentives are offered to program participants. As the program continues to grow, SHiFT hopes to offer donors more support to facilitate better environmental outcomes.
The ICCT’s fourth best practice suggests that programs tailored to individual localities are most successful. The ICCT recognizes that any significant funding for vehicle replacement/retirement programs often comes from larger, central authorities. Despite this, the IPCC urges program implementation and facilitation to be handled by local policymakers, if possible.
As SHiFT scales up it will work with state governments and regional authorities to tailor SHiFT services to the specific needs of the individuals in that area.
Per the ICCT, complementary, non-fiscal measures could also include mandatory age limits for vehicles or operation restrictions. These policies have the ability to incentivize increased participation in a voluntary program as well as increase emissions reductions in the process (p. 2).
Currently, this kind of advocacy is beyond the capacity of the SHiFT program. This isn’t to say that the folks at SHiFT are not immensely aware of initiatives taking place across the globe– from London’s recent low emissions zone, ULEZ, to India’s National Vehicle Scrappage Policy– we are paying attention and we are taking notes.
All in all, this 2015 paper by the ICCT lays out the basics of building a successful vehicle replacement program. Much of its suggested practices are not easily implementable, but rather require the gradual building of program norms and relationships. With this said, this document is incredibly valuable. It will be important to see how these practices are applied and adapted as vehicle replacement programs inevitably focus more on EV adoption to meet ambitious state and national EV adoption goals.
While the building blocks are in place, many of the best practices identified by the ICCT are not currently being engaged through the SHiFT program. The SHiFT program is actively pursuing opportunities to collaborate with states and local governments, environmental organizations, and academics to build this program into its final form. For now, we can only work with the tools available to us and aspire to build the program that we believe this can be.
