Researchers Convert Glucose Directly to Building Block for Fuels and Plastics Launches RechargeIT Plug-In Hybrid Car Initiative and Unveils Solar Installation

Study Identifies Structural Change in US Consumer Demand for Gasoline; Implications for Policies

The two periods of the study experienced comparable changes in the price of gasoline. Click to enlarge.

A study by researchers from the University of California Energy Institute completed last year concludes that there has been a structural change in consumer demand for gasoline, with consumers appearing significantly less responsive to gasoline price increases now than 25 years ago.

Because of that change, they suggest, technologies and policies—such as CAFE—for improving vehicle fuel economy may be increasingly important in reducing US gasoline consumption, rather than reliance on market-driven price increases or the application of a fuel tax.

The study, by Jonathan Hughes, Christopher Knittel and Dan Sperling, estimated and compared the short-run price elasticities of gasoline demand in two periods of comparable price volatility: November 1975 through November 1980 and March 2001 through March 2006.

The results presented here strongly support the existence of a structural change in the demand for gasoline. Estimates of the short-run price elasticity of gasoline demand for the period from 1975 to 1980 range from -0.21 and -0.34 and are consistent with estimates from the literature that use comparable data. However, estimates of the price elasticity for the more recent period are significantly more inelastic ranging from -0.034 to -0.077. This result has important policy implications.

The short-run price elasticity is a measure of the change in demand—either through a reduction in vehicle miles travelled, an increase in the fuel efficiency of driving (e.g., through better maintenance, more efficiency-oriented driving behavior) or both. Although short-run elasticity may also include responses such as the purchase of more fuel-efficient vehicles, the researchers note, vehicle purchase decisions are typically more long-run in nature.

There could be multiple explanations for the change, they suggest, which may reflect shifts in land-use, social or vehicle characteristics during the past several decades.

Whatever the cause, the results presented here suggest that today’s consumers have not significantly altered their driving behavior in response to higher gasoline prices. It is important to note that these results measure consumers’ reactions to short run changes in gasoline prices. However, it is the long-run response that is the most important in determining which polices are most appropriate for reducing gasoline consumption.

They conclude that reduced responsiveness in adjusting miles driven to increases in gasoline price is unlikely to change significantly for long-run behavior because the factors that may contribute to inelastic short-run price elasticities such as land use, employment patterns and transit infrastructure typically evolve on timescales greater than those considered in long-run decisions.

In terms of vehicle fuel economy, consumers may respond to higher gasoline prices in the long-run by purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. However, if consumers in the period from 2001 to 2006 were purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles in response to higher gasoline prices, one would expect to see at least a portion of this effect in the short-run elasticity.

While our results do not preclude a significant shift to more fuel efficient vehicles in the long-run response, the highly inelastic values that we observe suggest that the vehicle fuel economy component is small. If the long-run price elasticity is in fact more inelastic than in previous decades, smaller reductions in gasoline consumption will occur for any given gasoline tax level.

As a result, a tax would need to be significantly larger today in order to achieve an equivalent reduction in gasoline consumption. In the U.S., gasoline taxes have been politically difficult to implement. Higher required tax levels pose an addition hurdle. This may make tax policies impossible to implement in practice. In this case, alternate measures such as increases in the CAFE standard may be required to achieve desired reductions in gasoline consumption.

(A hat-tip to Bob!)




Personally, I think those advocating lifestyle changes are on the frindge, but most visionaries/trendsetters are. I'm sure recycling started out that way too. I tend to smile and move on from those discussions.

Back onto policy, I simply want the accelerate the change you forsee and forestall more of our fuel money from going to autocratic regimes that are benefiting not from the free enterprise of their citizens, but from a lucky endowment of petroleum reserves.

Roger Pham

Lifestyle change is difficult but doable. Smoking rate has gone way down, and cholesterol and heart disease too, has gone down due to improved lifestyle.

There is no need to buy $500,000 house in order to live closer to work. May be there are less expensive houses, depending on what you want. Living far away in the suburb waste a lot of time spent in traffic jam every day if you have to go to work downtown, and put you at higher risk for traffic accidents. How do you put a price tag on your free time and your safety? If you work 8-10 hours/day, then 1-2 hours saved from commuting mean that you can increase on your disposable free time by as much as 100%. More high-quality time spent with your family. Urban design and development must triumph over the current spreading urban sprawl like weeds.

There is no need to fight against Big Oil or Big Whatever in the transition to the renewable energy economy, IF the government is wise enough to put in sufffcient incentive for BIG OIL, Big GAs and Big Utility to invest heavily into renewable fuel development, instead of being lead in the nose by them. They are not evil, they are simply doing business as usual. We as a society must be smart if we want to control our destiny, instead of being lead in the nose like an ass by Big Whatever!


Engineer-Poet re. taxes and gasoline's demise.

The federal, state, and local tax on gasoline will simply transfer to alternate fuels, or other energy streams, because the monies are needed for roads. A chemist friend of mine is starting a co-op to produce ethanol. In order to do this, she had to register the co-op so that taxes could be levied against the product.

There are no free lunches--darn those revenuer's anyway!


If you want a road, some way has got to be found to pay for it!  And when most vehicles are electric, this is likely to become tolls and congestion charges for large roads, and property taxes for the local ones.

Surface transport doesn't require liquid fuels, and if you impose a stiff gas tax the use of liquid fuels will decline.

The comments to this entry are closed.