california greenhouse gas vehicle and fuel programs · 2007-12-04 · key principles governs...
Post on 13-Aug-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
California Greenhouse Gas Vehicle and Fuel Programs
Charles M. Shulock California Air Resources Board
November 28, 2007
NCSL Advisory Council on Energy
2
Overview
• AB 32 basics• GHG tailpipe standards• Low Carbon Fuel Standard
3
AB 32 Basics
• Approved September 27, 2006
• Sets in statute Governor’s 2020 target– Return to 1990 levels by 2020
• ARB to monitor/regulate GHG sources to reduce emissions
• Climate Action Team coordinates statewide climate policy
4
CAT Report Emissions
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1990 2000 2010 2020 2050Year
Mill
ion
Met
ric T
ons
(CO
2 Equ
ival
ent)
1990 Emission Baseline
80% Reduction~341 MMTCO2E
~174 MMTCO2E Reduction
11
11
Magnitude of the Challenge
5
GHG Reductions Required
• By 2020 California must reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
• Collectively this means reducing:– Today’s levels by 15%
– Projected levels by 28%
– Emission intensity by 33%
6
AB 32 Timeline
20202007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
GHG reduction measures operative
GHG reduction measures adopted
Publish list of early actions
Publish scoping
plan
Mandatory reporting &
1990 Baseline
Adopt enforceable early action regulations
Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
Identification/ implementation
of further emission reduction strategies
7
California Climate Change EmissionsCalifornia Climate Change Emissions
7
8
Motor Vehicle GHG Reduction Regulation
• Authorized by Legislature July 2002• Maximum feasible and cost-effective
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions• Adopted by Board September 2004• Legislative review completed 2005• Regulations apply to 2009 and later
model years• Stringency increases through 2016
9
Strong Technical Basis for Regulation
• International Vehicle Technology Symposium
• Comprehensive technical and economic studies – Technology evaluation by auto industry
consultants– Economic modeling by UC professors
• Independent academic peer review
10
Extensive Public Process
• September 26, 2002 Board Meeting• December 3, 2002 Workshop (Emission Inventory)• March 11-13, 2003 Vehicle Technology Symposium• September 18, 2003 Workshop (Standards, Economics)• October 14, 2003 Workshop (Alternative Compliance)• November 20, 2003 Board Meeting• February 18, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• April 20, 2004 Workshop (Technology Assessment)• July 6, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• July 7, 2004 Workshop (Draft Staff Report)• July 8, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• July 13, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• September 23-24, 2004 Board Meeting
11
• Fleet average standards• Two categories (as in LEV II)
– PC/LDT1– LDT2
• Exemption for work trucks• Credit trading allowed• Less stringent requirements for small
volume manufacturers
Structure of Regulation
12
Regulated Pollutants and Sources
• Standard applies to:– Combined GHG emissions
(CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs)– All vehicular GHG sources
(tailpipe, air conditioner)
• Standard expressed as “CO2-equivalent”– Emissions weighted according to global
warming potential
13
Standards Designed So All Models Can Comply
• Standards set to be feasible for manufacturer with heaviest fleet– Ensures all manufacturers can comply
without altering their fleet mix
• Even the largest SUVs able to comply• Consumer choice maintained
– All models remain available to consumers
14
Fleet Average Emission Standards
CO2-equivalent emission standards (g/km) Tier Year
PC/LDT1 LDT2 2009 202 274 2010 188 262 2011 167 244
Near-term
2012 146 226 2013 142 222 2014 139 219 2015 133 213
Mid-term
2016 128 208
~22% reductionin 2012
~30% reductionin 2016
15
Effect on Climate Change Emissions
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Calendar Year
Ligh
t Dut
y Ve
hicl
e C
O 2 E
quiv
alen
t Ton
s Pe
r Day
Without Regulation
With Regulation
-18% -27%
16
Available Technologies (Near-Term)
• Variable valve timing and lift• Turbocharging• Cylinder deactivation• Improved multi-speed transmissions• Electric power steering• Improved alternator• Gasoline direct injection• More efficient, low-leak air conditioning
17
Available Technologies
Cylinder Deactivation
Automated Manual Transmission
2005 Chrysler 300C Hemi
Audi TT 3.2 V6
6%*
7%
* % CO2 reduction, large car
18
Available Technologies
Acura RSX Variable valve timing and lift Honda Accord
Toyota Matrix
4%
19
Available TechnologiesGasoline Direct Injection
w/dual cam phasers
Turbocharger
BMW Valvetronic(continuously variable valve timing and lift)
BMW 5 Series
2005 Audi A4
Volvo S60
5%
8%
6%
20
Emerging Technologies (Mid-Term)
• Integrated starter/generator• Camless valve actuation• Gasoline homogeneous charge
compression ignition • More efficient, low-leak R-152a air
conditioning system
21
Emerging Technologies
2005 Chevrolet Silverado
Camless Valve Actuation
Homogeneous Combustion Compression Ignition
4%
6% 16%
Integrated Starter/Generator
22
Available TechnologiesNot Considered
• Gasoline hybrids– Prius, Escape, Civic
• Diesel– E320, Jetta TDI
• Not considered in setting stringency of GHG standard– HEV: Not yet widely available– Diesel: Emission compliance not certain
23
Average Price Increase of New Low GHG Vehicles
Retail Vehicle Price Increase
Passenger CarsLight Trucks/SUVs Large Trucks/SUVs
Near Term2012 $367 $277
Mid Term2016 $1064 $1029
24
Net Savings for Consumer (Passenger Cars and Small Trucks)
Near Term(2012)
Mid Term(2016)
Monthly PaymentIncrease
$7 $20
Monthly OperatingCost Savings
$18 $23
Monthly Net Savings $11 $3
Assumes fuel price of $1.74 per gallon
25
Net Savings for Vehicle Purchaser
$1.74per gallon
$5.00per gallon
Monthly PaymentIncrease
$7 $7
Monthly OperatingCost Savings
$18 $52
Monthly Net Savings $11 $45
Near-Term 2012
26
Net Savings for Vehicle Purchaser
$1.74per gallon
$5.00per gallon
Monthly PaymentIncrease
$20 $20
Monthly OperatingCost Savings
$23 $66
Monthly Net Savings $3 $46
Mid-Term 2016
27
Supplemental Analysis
• Potential effects– Fleet turnover (impacts on sales)– Rebound effect (impacts on VMT)
• Not part of traditional analysis• Useful to develop California-specific tools• Bottom line--effects are small
California’sLow Carbon Fuel Standard
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
California Environmental Protection AgencyCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency
AIR RESOURCES BOARDAIR RESOURCES BOARD
29
GHG emissions depend on how the fuel is made Representative lifecycle GHG emissions (gCO2e/mile)
(Uncertaintes are not shown, actual results may vary)
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
Gasoline upstreamGasoline TailpipeBiomass ProcessingFeedstock ProductionElectricity Generation
Gasoline
E85 Switch -
grass
Oil Tar Sands
CTL E85 Corn 1
E85 Corn 2
Advanced Biofuels ?
Coal Nat'l. Gas
Coal w/ CCS ?
Nuke / Renew
BiofuelsElectricity
Source: A.E. Farrell, Energy & Resources Group, UC Berkeley
30
Benefits of LCFS
Help to meet the GHG reduction goals of AB32
Reduce dependency on petroleum-based fuels by displacing 20% gasoline consumption
Diversify California’s options for transportation fuels
31
LCFS Benefits (Cont’)
Create a market for low carbon fuels and a stable investment environment
Enlarge renewable fuels market by expandingCalifornia’s alternative fuels markets by 3 to 5 times, while reducing GHG emissions
Promote direction of technology innovation with lower carbon foot-print
Promote more alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles
32
Development of LCFS: Key Principles
Governs intensity. Not amount of fuel soldMeasured on lifecycle basis. Fuel providers must decrease overall greenhouse gas emissionsMarket-based. Allows averaging, banking and trading to lower cost and provide flexibilityPerformance-based. Sets carbon reduction standards and methods to calculate complianceFuel-neutral. Fuel providers can choose which fuels to sell and in what volumes
33
Development of LCFS: Flexible Options for Compliance
Fuel providers will have different options by which to comply, including:
Only produce fuels that meet the standardSelling a mix of higher and lower carbon fuels that on average meet the standardUsing previously banked creditsPurchasing credits from other fuel providers who earned credits by exceeding the standard
34
LCFS Schedule
University of California completes LCFS study with CEC & ARB
Initiate draft regulatory language
LCFS regulation submitted to the Board for consideration
2007
Early 2008
End of2008
2009 Regulation submitted to Office of Administrative Law
2007-2008 Conduct LCFS workshops
Fall 2008 Regulatory package completed
Implementation2010-2020
top related