Lessons from the US

: how could Europe have ‘better regulated’ vehicle emissions?

Abstract

Air pollution is currently Europe’s biggest environmental health risk, with diesel emissions a major source of pollutants of concern. Despite diesel exhaust being classified in 1989 as a ‘probable carcinogen’, diesel vehicles were actively promoted in the EU for nearly 25 years until the 2015 Dieselgate scandal. In contrast, the US is widely recognised as the global world leader in controlling diesel emissions and diesel passenger cars currently comprise only a two percent share of the US vehicle fleet, compared to over 42 percent in the EU. Europe’s lag factor compared to the US is also mirrored in how the US regulated petrol lead, with a phasedown in lead emissions starting to take place by the late 1970s; compared to a European phasedown only taking place in the 1990s. The US lead phasedown has been described as “one of the great successes of the modern era of environmental policy” (Newell & Rogers, 2006, p. 171), with its success widely attributed to the use of a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as part of a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA): a Better Regulation (BR) tool used to assess the impact of regulatory proposals in terms of costs, benefits and risks.
As a result of these regulatory actions and others, the US has long been considered the world leader in controlling motor vehicle emissions: an anomaly compared to other areas of its environmental policy. For decades, scholars have striven to understand how the US has maintained this leadership position: citing the importance of a policy path framework afforded by the Clean Air Act (CAA) which offered federal national control; differences in institutional structure; as well as the influence of public health campaigns; and pre-1980, a more precautionary approach to developing these regulations.
One aspect that hasn’t been comparatively analysed, to date, is the specific use of BR tools in US and European motor vehicle emission regulatory development, despite their identification as a key factor for the successful development and implementation of an early US vehicle emissions regulation: the lead phasedown. These tools help support an evidence-based policy (EBP) approach to developing usable knowledge to inform policy development and have increasingly formed the basis of regulatory reform policies in both the US and Europe.
Despite the growing use of these tools, however, their technical-rational basis does not concur with the empirical reality of policymaking, particularly in the case of wicked/messy problems, such as environmental risks. There is a growing recognition that a ‘trans-scientific’, ‘post-normal’ scientific, ‘post-positivist’ approach should be adopted in these cases instead. There are few operational examples for developing a post-positivist basis for BR tools however, with the exception of welcoming public participation, incorporating greater analytical sophistication, and creating an awareness of the limits of the technical-rational approach to help reframe and manage policymaker expectations.
It was my subsequent hypothesis that the RIA utilised in the US lead phasedown had a post-positivist basis that ultimately lead to the generation and transmission of usable knowledge which resulted in its policy success. The central aim of this research was to determine if BR tools were a key differential factor, as part of (iv) an overarching policy pathway, in conjunction with three other differential factors: (i) political and public interests; (ii) the precautionary approach; and (iii) differences in US and European institutional structures.
Four case studies were identified to represent the US and European vehicle emission regulations: the petrol lead phasedown and the development of the first light-duty diesel vehicle (LDDV) PM emission standard. These were identified on the basis of their overarching policy success in the US; the degree to which their success was attributed to the use of a BR tool (the petrol lead phasedown); and their ongoing success in controlling particulate matter (PM) emissions (the first LDDV PM emission standard).
In an effort to combine both positivist and post-positivist perspectives in policy assessment research, the usable knowledge was assessed in two dimensions: (A) the usable core, which was based on four criteria (credibility, relevance, comprehensiveness and legitimacy); and (B) the usable knowledge-power interface. Dimension B was based on an assessment of the policy learning processes via the ‘mode of learning’ approach. By using the objectives of the BR tool and the BR tool process as the ‘policy assessment framework’; this approach was used to analyse the learning processes among and between different types of policy actors involved in different aspects of any BR tools utilised in the four regulatory case studies, based on four types of potential learners (programme unit; organisational stakeholders; external stakeholders; and internal/external evaluators) and four types of learning (an overview of the policy area/programme; small-scale programme adjustments; the BR tool’s positive impact on policy change; and methodology and evaluation), as well as a consideration of no learning. Data was collected through a combination of desktop reviews of existing literature and legislative documents, and interviews with key stakeholders (no = 44) to the regulatory process and subsequently codified and assessed with NVivo analytical software.
Based on the representative case studies, I found that the US used BR tools, that were strongly aligned with a post-positivist approach, that generated and transmitted significant usable knowledge to policymakers. In contrast, I found that Europe used BR tools that generated and transmitted significantly less usable knowledge to policymakers in one case study (the petrol lead phasedown) and no evidence could be found of any BR tool analysis in the other case study (the development of the first LDDV PM emission standard). As a result, I found that the use of BR tools was a key differential factor, as part of (iv) an overarching policy pathway, in terms of motivating and supporting the US in the accelerated development and promulgation of more stringent standards compared to Europe.
Thus, despite current ongoing concerns with the use of these tools by environmental regulatory professionals, I would argue that the use of BR tools in developing environmental regulations is extremely important and awareness should be raised of the role that BR tools play in knowledge production and transmission, and ultimately supporting learning in relation to environmental issues.
BR tools allow evidence to be converted into a ‘common language’ enabling stakeholders to focus on areas of disagreement, rather than differences in ideologies, and ultimately understand the scale of impacts and the significance of benefits. The use of evaluation is particularly important in developing environmental regulations, where problem uncertainty is high and there is a need for greater regulatory flexibility in order that policies and standards can be revised as scientific knowledge improves, evidence accumulates, and socioeconomic conditions change.
In terms of other differential factors that supported the US’s divergence from Europe, it was found that (ii) the precautionary approach was a key differential factor in the development of the LDDV PM emissions standard, but not in the petrol lead program, due to the high level of uncertainty associated with health risks from diesel PM at the time. It was also found that (ii) differences in institutional structures was a key differential factor, specifically in terms of the political and analytical support from the regulatory oversight bodies, in the development of the US petrol lead phasedown.
Finally, it was found that (i) the political atmosphere and the public concerns at the time was not a differential factor for the US regulatory development process, as this was identified as an important driver for the development of environmental regulations in both countries. Two additional differential factors were also identified in relation to the US LDDV PM emission standard case study: the need to consider the current and proposed degree of market penetration at the outset; and the technology forcing powers authorised by the CAA.
In addition, two key factors that specifically supported the development of European specific regulations were identified: lobbying support from pollutant control firms; and cross-national support from the US in terms of exchange of research experience, analytical techniques and funding.
Finally, five common factors that supported both US and European regulations were identified, and should be considered imperative in developing environmental regulations in either country: first, the presence of experts with authoritative knowledge and soft skills, who could also be considered policy entrepreneurs. Secondly, the support and incorporation of independent health research, which helps reduce problem uncertainty. Third, recognising the role that public health and environmental campaigns play in raising levels of public awareness and political support for regulatory controls. Fourth, the importance of environmental leader states, in terms of the ‘trading up’ aspect, as well as the political pressure they can apply on other national and federal governments. Finally, the acceptance of the use of innovative regulatory financial instruments by environmental policymakers.
In terms of insights that may help in dealing with ongoing issues with the use of BR tools in developing environmental regulation, overall, I would recommend using the usable knowledge core criteria (credibility, relevance, comprehensiveness and legitimacy) as reference points for the development of BR tools that would generate usable knowledge.
Furthermore, I found the following to be of significant importance in the development of usable knowledge: the supportive legislative framework; the institutional structure; the level of regulatory oversight; the freedom of problem definition; the consultation process; and the overall comprehensiveness of the knowledge produced. Also of importance was the establishment of clear teacher-learner relations; the presence of experts; the opportunity for co-production of the policy assessment by the evaluators and policymakers; the timeliness of the policy assessment; and clear and succinct methods of communication. I would also argue the importance of regulatory objectivity and neutrality in engaging with all stakeholders. I would argue that these criteria expand on the existing operational examples for developing a post-positivist basis for BR tools.

Date of Award	1 Jan 2023
Original language	English
Awarding Institution	King's College London
Supervisor	Ragnar Lofstedt (Supervisor) & Mark Pelling (Supervisor)