A Mandate to Be Inefficient

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a decisive blow to Mayor Michael Bloomberg‘s plan for New York City taxicabs to go green, to switch to hybrid cars.? This all started a few years ago when Bloomberg announced a plan to mandate that the famous New York City taxi fleet go all-hybrid.? The classic Crown Victoria gets about 12 miles per gallon, whereas a hybrid taxi gets 30 miles per gallon.? Quite a difference!? So this is great for the environment.

A bit of background may be helpful: taxicab drivers save about $15.00 per shift in gas with a hybrid compared to a Crown Victoria, but hybrids cost fleet owners around $7.50 more to buy and maintain. So it makes economic sense to have hybrids. But the city government sets a maximum lease rate, the maximum amount a taxi owner can charge a driver to drive the taxi for half a day. Why does this matter? This maximum lease rate means that the owners cannot charge more to the drivers to recoup their extra cost of owning and maintaining a hybrid.

The Federal Courts shot down Bloomberg’s must-go-hybrid mandate a few years ago because it violates the United States Clean Air Act (ironically!), which allows only the federal government to set fuel efficiency standards.? So then Bloomberg tried to introduce two-tiers to the maximum lease cap: there would be one higher tier for hybrids and one lower tier for the Crown Victoria.? Unfortunately for Bloomberg, and for the environment, the term “mandate” here is a legal term, one that is judged by what people actually will do, not what they are allowed to do.? If an incentive is so big that almost everyone does it, then legally this is considered a mandate. Just yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear the case, thus letting stand the lower court’s decision.

The deep irony that seems to have escaped the policy discussion is that the current maximum lease rates are somewhat a mandate too, but a mandate to be brown!? Since the maximum lease cap is binding, taxicab owners are not able to charge more to recover their costs of owning a hybrid. So in a free market the hybrid would be more profitable, but with the cap in place the Crown Victoria becomes more profitable for the owners (note that about 1/3 of taxis are now hybrid, but I think that number would be radically higher if there weren’t incentives to go brown). Encouraging fuel inefficiency is not what Bloomberg and the city government want to be doing, but they are. Why is this?

The frustrating fact is that both taxi owners and drivers would actually prefer to go green, if given the chance to let incentives work their magic. But there is a basic market failure here, generated by price regulation.? It is a classic case of a positive externality (the savings on gasoline costs for the driver) that could be internalized (by drivers paying the owners a bit more).? In economics jargon, this is just a simple matter of letting the Coase Theorem come to life … let people come together without regulation and the efficient solution can be found (read here for a 2007 Freakonomics article on the Coase Theorem). So why can’t we get this right?

One might suggest that the lease caps should simply be set precisely so that they cover the exact cost of operating a hybrid.? The problem here is one of stickiness and precision.? Changing lease caps is a cumbersome process, yet technology changes rapidly.? A system which kept lease caps in place but got this right would need constant updating to take into account changes in operating costs (which influence the relative costs to fleet owners) and changes in fuel efficiency (which influence the relative benefits of hybrids to the drivers).? This would be an exercise in futility, and nonstop bickering.

This is one of those nice situations where basic free market economics and the environment are perfectly aligned.? The current lease caps get the incentives wrong, and are ironically a de facto mandate to be fuel inefficient.? So let’s make our taxicabs green the easy way, by removing lease caps and freeing the markets.

What do you think?

 

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

 

COMMENTS: 23

View All Comments »
  1. Iljitsch van Beijnum says:

    Seems to me that all of this would work itself out for the most part if the drivers and the owners were one and the same.

    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
  2. KevinH says:

    I agree with you that often a free market is the best solution, but this seems like a fairly narrow case where a selective and illogical reading of the term ‘mandate’ is the more pressing issue than the entire market structure.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  3. Mr Nonsense says:

    Jeeminy Cricket! Just get rid of the over regulation. Set insurance standards, maybe have a test on knowledge of streets and routes, make a special class of license for carrying paid passengers and revert it to a standard license if there’s an accident, but get rid of everything else. Especially cost controls and price controls and number of allowed taxis — let anyone who meets the minimum requirements drive any old piece of junk they want. This idea that the default arrangement is for government regulation is slowly grinding the economy to a halt in bureaucratic sludge.

    What a perfect example of why bureaucracy is never the answer.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  4. Trent McBride says:

    “But there is a market failure here, generated by price regulation. ”

    That is an interesting turn of phrase.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  5. Ron says:

    This not a market failure, but rather a government failure. The “market” here is working within the rules forced on it by government, hence it is a government failure that produces the inefficient outcome.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  6. perlhaqr says:

    Government interference in the market producing an unfavorable outcome? Unpossible!

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  7. Simon C says:

    So from a custoners point of view it seems that hailing a non-green taxi would have meant that I would get charged less for the same service.

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
  8. Joe Arnao says:

    The answer is simple. Just create another lease agreement that skirts the law. Have the companies and the drivers create a lease agreement for the battery or the battery connector or for those beaded seat covers every taxi driver site on as an “accessory package” that comes with every hybrid. If we don’t start to find creative solutions to obtuse government regulations, the rest of the world is going to pass us by, they already are….

    Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0