cars and global warming - amazon web services cars and global warming the authors wish to...

Spring 2005

Policy Options to ReduceConnecticut’s Global Warming

Pollution from Cars and Light Trucks

Cars and Global Warming

Elizabeth RidlingtonTony Dutzik

Christopher Phelps

Spring 2005

ConnPIRG Education Fund

Cars and

Global WarmingPolicy Options to Reduce

Connecticut’s Global Warming Pollutionfrom Cars and Light Trucks

4 Cars and Global Warming

The authors wish to acknowledge Charles Rothenberger of Connecticut Fund for theEnvironment and Eric Haxthausen of Environmental Defense for providing peer re-view.

Sincere thanks to the Energy Foundation for providing financial support for thisproject.

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendationsare those of the Connecticut Public Interest Research Group Education Fund. Theviews expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflectthe views of those who provided editorial or technical review.

© 2005 ConnPIRG Education Fund

The Connecticut Public Interest Research Group (ConnPIRG) Education Fund is anonprofit, nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to protecting the environ-ment, the rights of consumers, and good government in Connecticut.

For additional copies of this report, send $10 (including shipping) to:

ConnPIRG Education Fund198 Park Rd., Second FloorWest Hartford, CT 06119

For more information about ConnPIRG and the ConnPIRG Education Fund, pleasecontact our office at 860-233-7554 or visit the ConnPIRG Web site atwww.connpirg.org.

Large cover photo: Sandy Ridlington

Design: Kathleen Krushas, To the Point Publications

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ConnPIRG Education Fund 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 6

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 8

GLOBAL WARMING AND CONNECTICUT .......................................... 10

Causes of Global Warming............................................................... 10

Potential Impacts of Global Warming .............................................. 10

Global Warming Pollution in Connecticut........................................ 11

The Regional Climate Change Action Plan and Connecticut’s

Climate Change Reduction Efforts ................................................... 11

The Transportation Challenge .......................................................... 13

Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Pollution in Connecticut: Past and Future .. 16

TOOLS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION FROM CARSAND LIGHT TRUCKS............................................................................... 18

Low-Emission Vehicle II Program .................................................... 18

Vehicle Global Warming Pollution Standards ................................... 23

The Need for Additional Actions ..................................................... 24

POLICY FINDINGS ................................................................................... 26

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................ 27

NOTES ....................................................................................................... 32


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Connecticut could significantlylimit its contribution to globalwarming over the next two de-

cades by implementing a policy to reducecarbon dioxide emissions from cars andlight trucks.

Global warming poses a serious threatto Connecticut’s future. Scientists projectthat average temperatures in Connecti-cut could increase by 2° to 8° F over thenext century if no action is taken to re-duce emissions of global warming pol-lution—potentially leading to coastalflooding, increased air pollution andheat-related deaths, and a host of otherimpacts on Connecticut’s environment,public health and economy.

Controlling global warming pollutionfrom the transportation sector—and par-ticularly cars and light trucks—is an es-sential part of meeting the goals adoptedby the Connecticut Legislature and theConference of New England Governorsand Eastern Canadian Premiers.

The transportation sector is respon-sible for more than one-third ofConnecticut’s releases of carbon dioxide,the leading global warming gas. Cars andlight trucks—such as pickups, minivansand SUVs—are the most importantsources of global warming pollution inthe transportation sector, responsible forabout two-thirds of all transportationsector emissions and about one-quarterof Connecticut’s total emissions of glo-bal warming pollution.

Carbon dioxide pollution from carsand light trucks in Connecticut is likelyto increase by approximately 20 percentover 1990 levels by 2020 unless actionis taken to reduce emissions.• The stagnation in federal corporate

average fuel economy (CAFE) stan-dards for cars and light trucks, the

recent shift toward greater use of lessfuel-efficient SUVs, and increasingvehicle travel have put Connecticut ona course toward dramatically in-creased emissions of carbon dioxidefrom transportation over the next twodecades.

Connecticut has already taken an im-portant step to reducing greenhouse gaspollution from cars and trucks by adopt-ing the California Clean Cars program.• The state’s implementation of the first

stage of the program, known as theLow Emission Vehicle II and ZeroEmission Vehicle (LEV II/ZEV) pro-gram, will pave the way for the wide-spread introduction of clean vehicles(such as hybrid-electric and fuel-cellvehicles) that could result in dramatic,long-term reductions in carbon emis-sions. In the process, it will lead tolight-duty carbon dioxide emissionreductions of about 1.2 percent belowprojected levels by 2020.

Connecticut can achieve more signifi-cant reductions in its carbon dioxideemissions by implementing the vehicleglobal warming pollution standards inthe Clean Cars program at the earliestallowable date.• California’s standards on global

warming pollution from automobiles(also known as the “Pavley” standardsfor their original legislative sponsor)could produce significant reductionsin vehicle global warming emissionsas cars are equipped with direct-injec-tion engines, advanced transmissions,improved air conditioning systems,and other advanced technologies. Byimplementing the program to take ef-fect in model year 2009, Connecticut


may reduce carbon dioxide pollutionfrom cars and light trucks by about13 percent below projected levels by2020.

• Once the program is fully imple-mented in 2016, consumers are pro-jected to save $3 to $7 every monthas a result of the standards.

• Even with implementation of bothcomponents of the Clean Cars pro-gram, carbon dioxide pollution fromcars and light trucks in 2020 wouldbe only slightly lower than pollutionin 2000 because of a large projectedincrease in vehicle travel. Thus, Con-necticut will likely need to adopt ad-ditional policies to reduce emissionsfrom the transportation sector if itwishes to achieve the regional goal ofreducing overall global warming pol-lution to 10 percent below 1990 lev-els by 2020.

Connecticut should move quickly toadopt policies that will stabilize, and ul-timately reduce, emissions of carbon di-oxide from cars and light trucks.• In 2005, Connecticut should commit

to implementing the vehicle globalwarming pollution standards in theClean Cars program so that they takeeffect in model year 2009.

• Connecticut should adopt other pro-grams—such as clean car incentivesthat encourage individuals and fleetsto purchase vehicles with lower glo-bal warming emissions, “smartgrowth” policies that reduce vehicletravel, transit improvements and othermeasures—that reduce global warm-ing pollution from the transportationsector.

Figure ES-1. Estimated Connecticut Carbon Dioxide Emissions fromCars and Light Trucks, 2000-2020, Under Policy Scenarios

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(Millio

n M

etr

ic T

on

s C

arb

on

E

qu

ivale

nt)

Base CaseProjection

LEV II/ZEV

LEV II/ZEV andGlobal WarmingPollutionStandards


INTRODUCTION

In 2001, Connecticut, in concert withother New England states and east-ern Canadian provinces, took a bold

step toward dealing with the problem ofglobal warming by adopting a regionalClimate Change Action Plan. The plan,the goals of which have been incorpo-rated into Connecticut state law, com-mitted the region to significantreductions in emissions of global warm-ing pollution over the next two decadesand even greater reductions in the future.

As the first step to meeting its com-mitment, then-Governor Rowland con-vened the Governor’s SteeringCommittee, whose members are the lead-ers of key state agencies. The SteeringCommittee initiated the Climate ChangeStakeholder Dialogue (CCSD). Repre-sentatives of business, government,academia, and the nonprofit sector gath-ered to develop a policy roadmap forConnecticut to achieve its global warm-ing pollution reduction goals.

In December 2003, the ClimateChange Stakeholder Dialogue issued itsrecommendations, a package of 55 poli-cies that would begin to stabilize andreduce Connecticut’s global warmingpollution in the decades to come. Therecommendations cover every aspect ofenergy use in Connecticut, includingtransportation.

Addressing emissions from the trans-portation sector is Connecticut’s biggestchallenge to meeting its emission reduc-tion goals, not only because transporta-tion is the largest source of the state’sglobal warming pollution but also be-cause emissions from the transportationsector are expected to become a largershare of total pollution in coming years.

The technology exists to reduce emis-sions from cars and light trucks, the larg-est source of transportation emissions.The tools to make less-polluting cars and

trucks already exist, and can be imple-mented at little cost—and even a net eco-nomic benefit—to most consumers.Meanwhile, a host of newer technolo-gies such as plug-in hybrids and fuel cellvehicles could play an important role inmeeting the region’s long-term pollutionreduction goals.

Two key transportation policies recom-mended by the stakeholders and includedin the Climate Change Action Plan sub-mitted to the Legislature were adoptionof the LEV II/ZEV program (which setssales requirements for hybrid-electric andother clean vehicles) and California’semission standards for greenhouse gases.

Connecticut has adopted the CleanCars program, which originated in Cali-fornia and has been adopted by otherstates including New York, New Jersey,Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Thefirst provision of the program, the Low-Emission Vehicle II and Zero-EmissionVehicle standards, requires that a per-centage of vehicles sold in Connecticutin coming years be advanced-technologyvehicles such as hybrids, which havelower global warming emissions.

Now it is time for Connecticut toimplement the Clean Cars program’s lim-its on vehicle global warming pollution.Automakers will reduce emissions of glo-bal warming pollutants by incorporat-ing direct-injection engines, continuouslyvariable transmissions, improved air con-ditioners, and other advanced technolo-gies into new vehicles. California’sstandards for vehicle global warmingpollution will lead to even greaterprogress toward realizing the promise ofnew technologies to reduce the impactof our transportation system on the cli-mate.

This report documents the benefitsConnecticut may receive from its recentadoption of California’s Clean Cars pro-


gram by estimating the impact that bothLEV II/ZEV and vehicle global warm-ing pollution standards could have forreducing global warming pollution frommotor vehicles in Connecticut. But it alsodocuments the challenge the state facesin reining in emissions from the trans-

portation sector. Even with full imple-mentation of the Clean Cars program,Connecticut will still need to take addi-tional steps to curtail global warmingpollution from transportation andachieve its overall climate protectiongoals.


Human activities over the lastcentury—particularly theburning of fossil fuels—have

changed the composition of the atmo-sphere in ways that threaten dramatic al-teration of the global climate in the yearsto come. Those changes will have seri-ous repercussions for Connecticut.

Causes of GlobalWarming

Global warming is caused by a blan-ket of greenhouse gas pollution that trapssolar radiation near the earth’s surface.This pollution comes largely from cars,power plants, factories and homes whenwe burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil andgas, as well as from other human andnatural processes.

Since 1750, the atmospheric concen-tration of carbon dioxide has increasedby 31 percent. The current rate of in-crease in carbon dioxide concentrationsis unprecedented in the last 20,000 yearsand the total concentration of carbondioxide is at its highest point in 420,000years.1 Concentrations of other globalwarming gases, such as methane and ni-trous oxide, have increased as well.

As a result, average global tempera-tures increased during the 20th centuryby about 1° F. And, if current trends inglobal warming pollution continue, tem-peratures could rise by an additional 2.5°F to 10.4° F over the period 1990 to2100.2

Potential Impacts ofGlobal Warming

The impact of this increase in globaltemperatures will vary from place toplace. Because the earth’s climate systemis extraordinarily complex, warming

GLOBAL WARMING AND CONNECTICUT

may be more or less extreme at variouspoints on the globe and at different timesduring the year. Some regions will expe-rience drier weather, others will receivemore precipitation. Storm cycles will alsolikely be affected in unpredictable yetsignificant ways.

There is little doubt, however, that thefirst signs of global warming are begin-ning to appear, both in Connecticut andaround the world. There is also littledoubt that global warming could leadto dramatic disruptions in our economy,environment and way of life.

Over the last century, for example, theaverage temperature in Storrs has in-creased by 2° F.3 Meanwhile, precipita-tion has increased by 20 percent in partsof Connecticut.4

Should current emission trends con-tinue, some studies predict that tempera-tures in Connecticut could increase by2° F to 8° F by 2100.5 Others estimatethat a 1.8° F increase in average tempera-ture could occur New England-wide assoon as 2030, with a 6° F to 10° F in-crease over current average temperaturesby 2100.6

Precipitation levels also could change.Scientific models suggest precipitationmay increase by 10 to 20 percent, par-ticularly in winter.7

In any event, the impacts of such a shiftin average temperature and precipitationwould be severe. Among the potentialimpacts:• Longer and more severe smog seasons

as higher summer temperatures facili-tate the formation of ground-levelozone, resulting in additional threatsto respiratory health such as aggra-vated cases of asthma.8

• Increased coastal flooding due tohigher sea levels, with sea levels pro-jected to rise as much as 22 inchesalong the Connecticut coast.


• Increased spread of mosquito and tick-borne illnesses, such as West Nile vi-rus and Lyme disease.

• Increased risk of heat-related illnessesand deaths—perhaps a 20 percent in-crease in heat-related deaths.

• Increased spread of exotic pests andshifts in forest species—including theloss of hardwood forests responsiblefor vibrant fall foliage displays.

• Shifts in populations of fish, lobsterand other aquatic species due tochanging water temperatures andchanges in the composition of coastalestuaries and wetlands.

• Increases in toxic algae blooms and“red tides,” resulting in fish kills andcontamination of shellfish.

The likelihood and severity of thesepotential impacts is difficult to predict.But this much is certain: rapid changesin climate such as those predicted by thelatest scientific research would have adramatic, disruptive effect onConnecticut’s environment, economyand public health—unless immediateaction is taken to limit our emissions ofglobal warming pollutants such as car-bon dioxide.

Global WarmingPollution in Connecticut

Based on an inventory compiled byNortheast States for Coordinated Air UseManagement (NESCAUM), emissions ofglobal warming pollution in Connecti-cut increased by approximately 10 per-cent between 1990 and 2000.9 Of thoseemissions, more than 90 percent were inthe form of carbon dioxide released as aresult of the combustion of fossil fuels.10

The transportation sector is respon-sible for approximately one-third of

Connecticut’s contribution to globalwarming and over one-third of its re-leases of carbon dioxide.14 (See Figure1, page 10.) Cars and light trucks—suchas pickups, minivans and SUVs—are themost important sources of global warm-ing pollution within the transportationsector, responsible for over two-thirds ofall transportation-sector emissions andabout one-quarter of Connecticut’s to-tal emissions of global warming pollu-tion.15

The Regional ClimateChange Action Plan andConnecticut’s ClimateChange ReductionEfforts

Recognizing the threat global warm-ing poses to Connecticut—as well as theopportunity for the state to make a sig-nificant contribution to reducing globalwarming pollution—in 2001, then-Gov-ernor Rowland joined with other NewEngland governors and premiers of theeastern Canadian provinces in adoptinga regional Climate Change Action Plan.

The plan, since incorporated into Con-necticut state law, set goals for the re-gion to stabilize, and ultimately reduce,its emissions of global warming pollut-ants to the atmosphere. In the short term,the plan calls for regional global warm-ing pollution to be reduced to 1990 lev-els by 2010. In the medium term, theregion is committed to reductions of 10percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Andin the long term, the agreement calls fora reduction in global warming pollutionsufficient “to eliminate any dangerousthreat to the climate”—a level of reduc-tion estimated by scientists at 75 to 85percent below present-day levels.17

The plan also acknowledged the im-portance of the transportation sector to


Electricity 22%

Residential 17%

Waste Management

7%

Industrial 8%

Agriculture 1%

Commercial 9%

Other 3%

Transportation 33%

any effort to reduce overall global warm-ing pollution, and committed the regionto attempt to “slow the growth rate oftransportation emissions in the near fu-ture.”18 Specifically, the plan recom-mended that the region “[p]romote theshift to higher efficiency vehicles, lowercarbon fuels, and advanced technologiesthrough the use of incentives and educa-tion,” among other efforts.19

A notable shortcoming in the regionalplan is the failure to commit to specific,numerical goals for the reduction of glo-bal warming pollution from the trans-portation sector—even though similargoals were set for reductions from theelectricity sector and the public sector,and for improvements in energy conser-vation. The reticence of the governorsand premiers to make a concrete com-mitment on this issue represents a weaklink in the agreement—one that couldjeopardize the region’s ability to meet itsoverall global warming emission reduc-tion goals.

Another weakness of the plan is its lackof a timeline for achieving the long-termpollution reduction goal of eliminatingany threat to the climate. The Connecti-cut Legislature, however, addressed thisparticular problem when it formally

adopted the goals of the plan. When theLegislature wrote the plan’s goals intoConnecticut law, it called upon theregion’s governors and premiers to agreeupon a date for achieving the long-termreductions. If there is no regional agree-ment on the deadline, Connecticut willestablish a goal of 2050.20

In the past several years, Connecticuthas reinforced its commitment to achiev-ing the regional goals by developing amore comprehensive plan of action. Thestate initiated a public process to developa list of recommended actions Connecti-cut could take to reduce its global warm-ing pollution. The extensive stakeholderprocess involved representatives frombusiness, government, academia and thenonprofit sector. The stakeholders en-dorsed a list of 55 programs and poli-cies to reduce the state’s contribution toglobal warming from all sectors of theeconomy, including transportation; landuse; residential, commercial, and indus-trial energy use; agriculture, forestry, andwaste management; and electricity gen-eration.

In the spring of 2004, then-GovernorRowland endorsed 38 of the recommen-dations for implementation or plannedimplementation by the end of 2005. Inaddition, the Governor’s Steering Com-mittee has submitted a Climate ActionPlan to the Legislature that includes all55 of the stakeholders’ policies. Accord-ing to the stakeholders’ analysis, theadoption of all the policies endorsed bythe stakeholders will allow Connecticutto meet its global warming pollution re-duction goals.21

Connecticut has already taken severalsteps to begin reducing its emissions. Thestate just adopted California’s Clean Carsstandards to reduce emissions of toxicand global warming pollution from ve-hicles (the benefits of this program willbe discussed in the following section on“Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pol-

Figure 1. Connecticut Sources of GlobalWarming Pollution in 200016


lution from Cars and Light Trucks”).Other policies include the state’s revisedrenewable portfolio standard for electric-ity generation, which will require 7 per-cent of the state’s electricity to come fromnew, clean renewable resources by 2010,and systems benefit charges on electric-ity bills that generate funding for energyefficiency and renewable energy pro-grams, though these funds have beenraided in the past by the Legislature topay for unrelated expenses.

The TransportationChallenge

The challenge of reducing globalwarming pollution from cars and trucksis formidable, and growing increasinglyso with each passing year.

Three trends in the transportation sec-tor make the challenge of reducing glo-bal warming pollution in Connecticuteven greater.

Other Global Warming Pollutants

This report focuses on transportation-related emissions of carbon dioxide—

the leading gas responsible for global warming and the global warming gas

released in the largest quantities by cars and trucks. Cars and trucks produce

other global warming pollution, however, that must be considered in any emis-

sion reduction strategy.

•Methane – Methane gas is likely the second-most important contributor to

global warming. Cars and light trucks produce methane in their exhaust, but it is

thought that they are only minor emitters of methane and that pollution will be

reduced in the future through improved emission control systems.11

•Nitrous Oxide – Nitrous oxide is also produced in automobile exhaust, with

mobile sources estimated to contribute about 13 percent of U.S. nitrous oxide

emissions in 2002.12 As with methane emissions, improved pollution control

measures may reduce nitrous oxide emissions in the future.

•Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – HFCs are extremely potent global warming

gases, yet tend to be released in only very small quantities. HFCs are often

used as coolants in vehicle air conditioning systems and can escape from those

systems into the environment.

•Black carbon – Black carbon, otherwise known as “soot,” is a product of the

burning of fossil fuels, including diesel fuel used in heavy-duty trucks and a

small percentage of light-duty vehicles. Recent research has suggested that,

because black carbon absorbs sunlight in the atmosphere and on snow and

icepack, it may be a major contributor to global warming, perhaps second in

importance only to carbon dioxide. Research is continuing on the degree to

which black carbon pollution contributes to global warming.13


Increasing Vehicle MilesTraveled

Connecticut residents are travelingmore miles in their cars and light trucksthan ever before. Between 1983 and2003, the number of vehicle-miles trav-eled (VMT) annually on Connecticuthighways increased from 20.6 billionmiles to 31.4 billion miles—an increaseof 52 percent.22 (See Figure 2.)

Stagnating Fuel Economy

The imposition of federal CorporateAverage Fuel Economy (CAFE) stan-dards beginning in 1975 led to dramaticimprovements in the fuel efficiency ofAmerican cars and light duty trucks. TheCAFE standards required a gradual in-crease in fuel economy during the 1970sand 1980s, topping out at an average fueleconomy for new cars of 27.5 miles pergallon (mpg) by 1990 and 20.7 mpg forlight trucks by 1996.24 (The NationalHighway Traffic Safety Administrationhas begun to phase in an increase in thelight truck standard to 22.2 mpg, to be

Transportation and Global Warming: A Primer

A gallon of gasoline contains a set amount of carbon, nearly all of which is released to the

atmosphere when it is burned. Some of the carbon is released in the form of hydrocarbons; most

of it is released in the form of carbon dioxide. For each gallon of gasoline burned in a vehicle,

about 19.6 pounds of carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere. In addition, the consumption

of gasoline creates significant additional “upstream” emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from

the extraction, transportation, refining and distribution of the fuel. Other fuels have greater or

smaller amounts of carbon in a gallon (or its equivalent).

Unlike other vehicular air pollutants that result from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels

or from fuel impurities, carbon dioxide is a natural result of the combustion process. As a result,

there are three main ways to limit carbon dioxide pollution from motor vehicles:

1. Drive more efficient vehicles.

2. Reduce the number of miles traveled.

3. Switch to fuels with lower lifecycle carbon emissions.

Vehicles also emit smaller amounts of other global warming gases, such as methane and

nitrous oxide, as well as hydrofluorocarbons from the use of the air conditioning system. Control

of some of these emissions is possible through means other than reducing fuel use or substitut-

ing low-carbon fuels.

fully achieved by model year 2007.)In the decade-and-a-half following en-

actment of the CAFE standards, the “realworld” fuel economy of passenger carsnearly doubled—from 13.4 mpg in 1975to 24.0 mpg in 1988. Similarly, lighttrucks experienced an increase in real-world fuel economy from 11.8 mpg in1975 to 18.3 mpg in 1987.25

However, the trend in the 1990s wastoward less fuel-efficient vehicles.Though fuel economy has stabilized forthe past several years, in many cases,Americans get fewer miles per gallonfrom their new vehicles today than theydid during the Reagan administration.

Until recently, the federal governmenthad refused to increase CAFE standardsfor more than a decade, and changes indriving patterns—including higherspeeds and increased urban driving—have led to a real-world decrease in fueleconomy. An EPA analysis of fueleconomy trends found that the averagereal-world fuel economy of light-dutyvehicles sold in 2003 was lower than theaverage fuel economy of vehicles sold in


1981. Indeed, the average real-world fueleconomy of new cars and light trucksactually declined by 7 percent between1988 and 2003.26 (See Figure 3.)

Amid growing public pressure to im-prove vehicle fuel economy, the U.S.Department of Transportation is increas-ing CAFE standards for light trucks bya modest 1.5 mpg between 2005 and2007. While this action does not go farenough to take advantage of many tech-nologies that could cost-effectively im-prove fuel economy, even a modestincrease in CAFE standards has someeffect in reducing the rate of growth oftransportation carbon dioxide pollution.

Growing Numbers of SUVsand Light Trucks

While the fuel economy of the averagecar and light truck has stagnated overthe past two decades, the average fueleconomy of the entire new-car fleet hasdeclined—thanks to the dramatic shifttoward sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vansand light trucks.

In 1975, when the first federal CAFEstandards were enacted, SUVs made up2 percent of the light-duty vehicle mar-ket, vans 5 percent, and pickup trucks13 percent. By model year 2004, how-ever, SUVs accounted for 26 percent of

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

Year

Ve

hic

le M

ile

s T

rav

ele

d (

Mil

lio

ns

)Figure 2. Connecticut VMT Increased More than 50 Percent between

1983 and 200323

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

Year

Fu

el

Ec

on

om

y (

Mil

es

pe

r G

all

on

)

Car - CAFE Standard

Car - Real World Mileage

Combined Real World Mileage

Truck - CAFE Standard

Truck - Real World Mileage

Figure 3. Average Fuel Economy for New Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet onthe Decline27


67%5%

15%

6%

7%

48%

4%15%

7%

26%

71%

9%

13%

5%2%

light-duty vehicle sales, vans 7 percent,and pick-up trucks 15 percent. The light-duty market share of passenger cars and

Figure 4 (a-c). Light-Duty Vehicle MixShifts from Cars to Trucks, Vans and

SUVs

SUVs

Vans

Pickups

Wagons

Cars

CarsWagons

Pickups

Vans

SUVs

Cars

Wagons

Pickups

Vans

SUVs

Model Year 1975

Model Year 1987

Model Year 2004

station wagons dropped over the sameperiod from 81 percent to 52 percent.28

(See Figure 4a-4c.)This shift toward larger vehicles has

caused the average fuel economy of theentire new light-duty vehicle fleet to dipas low as 20.4 mpg in 2001—lower thanat any time since 1980 and down bynearly 8 percent from the historical peakin 1987 and 1988.29

The trend toward SUVs and lighttrucks is expected to continue, with lighttrucks making up an increasing percent-age of the entire light-duty fleet as timegoes on. The Environmental ProtectionAgency projects that by 2020, 64 per-cent of all light-duty vehicles on the roadwill be light trucks.30

The combination of these three fac-tors—more miles traveled, increasinglyin trucks and SUVs, with stagnant fueleconomy across the entire vehicle fleet—poses a great challenge to Connecticutpolicy-makers as they attempt to reduceglobal warming pollution from the trans-portation sector.

Vehicle Carbon DioxidePollution in Connecticut:Past and Future

Based on Connecticut-specific fuel con-sumption data compiled by the U.S. En-ergy Information Administration (EIA),cars and light-duty trucks released ap-proximately 2.9 million metric tons car-bon equivalent (MMTCE) of carbondioxide into the atmosphere in 1990. By2000, those emissions had increased byabout 7 percent, to 3.1 MMTCE—mean-ing that cars and trucks were responsiblefor approximately one-quarter ofConnecticut’s contribution to globalwarming in 2000.31

Any attempt to project Connecticut’sfuture global warming pollution dependsgreatly on the assumptions used. The


“Assumptions and Methodology” sec-tion at the conclusion of this report de-scribes these assumptions in detail.Simply put, the following projections(which are based largely on data and pro-jections by state and federal governmentagencies and which we will term the“base case”) assume continued growth invehicle travel, slight improvement in ve-hicle fuel economy, and a continuation ofthe trend toward increased purchases ofsport utility vehicles and other light trucks.

Based on these assumptions, carbondioxide emissions from the Connecticutlight-duty vehicle fleet are projected toexperience a 5 percent increase over 2000levels by 2010, followed by a further 8percent increase between 2010 and 2020.In other words, by 2020, carbon diox-ide emissions from cars and light truckswill exceed 1990 levels by 20 percent inthe absence of action to reduce emissions.(See Figure 5.)

An increase of such magnitude wouldseverely challenge Connecticut’s abilityto meet its intermediate global warmingpollution reduction goals of 10 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2020. Should theseincreases in emissions from cars and lighttrucks occur, Connecticut would need toachieve dramatic reductions in globalwarming pollution—much greater than

10 percent below 1990 levels—fromother sectors of the state’s economy inorder to meet the goals of the plan.

However, this path toward increasingcarbon dioxide pollution from cars andlight trucks is not inevitable. Public poli-cies that require or encourage the purchaseof more fuel-efficient or advanced tech-nology cars can make a significant dent inConnecticut’s future emissions of globalwarming pollution while potentially sav-ing money for drivers. One of the mostpowerful policy options is California’s lim-its on vehicle global warming pollution.

A Note on Units

Because various gases contribute to global warm-

ing, and the potency of the warming effects of those

gases varies, inventories of global warming pollu-

tion typically use units that communicate emissions

in terms of their global warming potential.

In this report, we use units of “carbon equiva-

lent”—the amount of carbon (in the form of carbon

dioxide) that would need to be released to create a

similar global warming effect. Other documents

communicate pollution in terms of “carbon dioxide

equivalent.” To translate the carbon equivalent to

carbon dioxide equivalent, one can simply multiply

by 3.66.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

E)

Figure 5. Actual and Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissionsfrom Light-Duty Vehicles in Connecticut, 1990-2020


Connecticut has many potentialtools available to reduce emis-sions of global warming pollu-

tion from the transportation sector.Among the most powerful of those toolsare the global warming pollution stan-dards for cars and trucks planned inCalifornia.

The Clean Air Act gives most statestwo options for control of motor vehicleemissions identified as pollutants underthe Act: states may choose to complywith federal emission standards or adoptthe more protective standards imple-mented by the state of California, theonly state empowered by the Clean AirAct to devise its own emission regula-tions.

Connecticut—like six other states inthe Northeast—has chosen to implementCalifornia’s Clean Cars standards. Thefirst step of the program targets smog-forming and other pollutants. In addi-tion to reducing emissions of pollutiondirectly dangerous to human health, thisphase of the program will lower emis-sions of global warming gases.

Connecticut and other states now havethe opportunity to adopt the Clean Carsprogram’s next phase—standards limit-ing global warming emissions from carsand light trucks. The standards will bringabout significant reductions in carbondioxide and other greenhouse gas emis-sions from cars and light trucks over thenext decade.

As discussed below, Connecticut’sadoption of California’s Low-EmissionVehicle II and Zero-Emission Vehiclestandards provides a first step in reduc-ing greenhouse gas pollution from ve-hicles. Adding global warming pollutionstandards would result in even more sig-nificant reductions in emissions of glo-bal warming gases from cars and trucks,

providing important assistance inConnecticut’s efforts to meet the state’sclimate change goals.

Low-Emission Vehicle IIProgram

The first stage of the California CleanCars program—known as the Low Emis-sion Vehicle II and Zero Emission Ve-hicle, or LEV II/ZEV, standards—seeksto reduce emissions of smog-forming andother hazardous pollutants. It achievesits goals by establishing fleet-wide limitson tailpipe emissions and by requiringthe sale of advanced-technology vehiclessuch as hybrids that have even loweremissions. Eventually, the program callsfor the sale of zero-emission vehicles(ZEVs). In addition, some of the tech-nological changes encouraged by LEV II/ZEV will reduce emissions of globalwarming pollutants.

By adopting the program, Connecticuthas laid the groundwork to have increas-ing percentages of advanced-technologyvehicles on the road over the next de-cade and more. The program currentlyhas three main components.

Pure Zero-Emission Vehicles

“Pure” zero-emission vehicles (pureZEVs) are those—like battery-electricand fuel-cell vehicles—that release notoxic or smog-forming pollutants fromtheir tailpipes or fuel systems. They alsohave the potential to release far fewerglobal warming gases than today’s ve-hicles.

The most recent revision to LEV II/ZEV shifted the emphasis of the programfrom near-term deployment of battery-electric vehicles to the long-term devel-opment of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Asa result, automakers will not have to sell

TOOLS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING POLLUTION

FROM CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS


fuel-cell or other pure zero-emission ve-hicles in Connecticut until at least modelyear 2012. Even then, the number of pureZEVs required for sale in Connecticutwould be small, representing less thanone percent of new car and light trucksales until model year 2016.32

In addition, the California Air Re-sources Board (CARB), which adminis-ters the program, is scheduled to reviewthe status of fuel-cell technology priorto enforcing any pure ZEV requirementsfor the 2009 model year and beyond.33

The current incarnation of LEV II/ZEV, therefore, requires the sale of veryfew pure zero-emission vehicles over thenext decade. But it does provide an in-centive for automakers to continue re-search and development work ontechnologies such as hydrogen fuel-cellvehicles that could provide zero-emissiontransportation in the future. (Note thatfuel-cell vehicles have zero emissions pro-vided that the electricity that is used tocreate the hydrogen is generated fromrenewable sources.)

Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle

(PZEV) Credits

The majority of vehicles thatautomakers produce to comply withLEV II/ZEV will be vehicles that receive“partial ZEV credit”—otherwise knownas “PZEVs.” PZEVs are conventionalgasoline vehicles in every way but one:they are engineered to produce dramati-cally lower emissions of air toxics andsmog-forming pollutants.

While PZEVs will play an importantrole in helping Connecticut to achieveits air quality goals, the technologies usedin PZEVs do not necessarily make a sub-stantial contribution to reducing globalwarming pollution from cars. Thus, wedo not assume any global warming ben-

efits from the PZEV portion of the pro-gram.

Advanced Technology PZEVs (AT-

PZEVs)

The greatest near-term global warm-ing impact of LEV II/ZEV will likelycome from provisions to encourage thesale of PZEVs that also run on a cleaneralternative fuel, such as compressed natu-ral gas, or that use advanced technolo-gies, such as hybrid-electric drive. Theseare known as “advanced technologyPZEVs” or “AT-PZEVs.” To encourageautomakers to release additional newhybrid vehicles as early as possible,automakers are allowed to comply withup to 40 percent of their LEV II/ZEVsales obligations in the early years of theprogram through the sale of AT-PZEVs.

Hybrid-electric vehicles are the mostlikely technology to be used to complywith AT-PZEV standards. Hybrids haveproven to be very popular with consum-ers, especially in an era of higher andrapidly fluctuating gasoline prices. Salesof hybrid vehicles have increased steadilysince their introduction to the domesticmarket in December 1999. About85,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. in2004, almost double sales of the previ-ous year.34

Thus far, four models of vehicles havebeen certified to AT-PZEV emission stan-dards: the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civichybrid, the Ford Escape hybrid, and thenatural gas-powered Honda Civic GX.35

(Several other hybrid vehicles, such asthe Honda Accord, are on the marketbut either their emissions are too high tomeet AT-PZEV standards or theautomaker does not want to offer theextended warranty required with PZEVs.These vehicles nonetheless can achievemeasurable reductions in global warm-


ing emissions.) Unfortunately, althougha healthy market for hybrids appears toexist, automakers have not yet suppliedhybrids in large enough quantities tomeet consumer demand. By the end of2005, the demand crunch could easeslightly if automakers introduce six ad-ditional hybrid models as planned—in-cluding hybrid versions of the NissanAltima and Toyota Highlander—thatcould qualify for AT-PZEV credit.36

Should automakers choose to maxi-mize their use of AT-PZEVs to complywith LEV II/ZEV—and do so using ve-hicles similar to the Toyota Prius—hy-brids could make up about 3.5 percentof Connecticut car and light truck salesin 2008, increasing to 7 percent by 2012.(See Figure 6.) This translates to sales ofabout 6,500 hybrids in Connecticut in2007, increasing to approximately19,000 annually by 2016. Because LEVII/ZEV offers a great deal of flexibility,however, automakers could choose tocomply by manufacturing greater num-bers of less-advanced hybrids or smallernumbers of pure ZEVs, among otheroptions.

Also unclear is the degree of globalwarming gas reductions that can be ex-pected from vehicles complying with AT-

PZEV standards. Hybrid-electric vehiclesand alternative-fuel vehicles vary greatlyin their emissions of global warmingpollution. Some, like the Toyota Prius,offer great reductions in global warm-ing emissions. Others, such as hybridpickup trucks to be sold by GeneralMotors and DaimlerChrysler, continueto have significant global warming pol-lution despite their improved emissionscompared to conventional models. LEVII/ZEV does provide additional credit tohybrid-electric vehicles that attain agreater share of their power from an elec-tric motor (generally allowing them toachieve lower carbon dioxide emissions),but these credits are not directly tied toglobal warming pollution. For the pur-poses of this analysis, we assume thathybrids manufactured to comply withAT-PZEV standards will release about 30percent fewer global warming gases permile than conventional vehicles.38

LEV II/ZEV Impacts: LongTerm

On the front end, no assessment ofshort-term global warming pollution re-ductions can precisely capture the poten-tial long-term and indirect benefits ofLEV II/ZEV in reducing carbon dioxide

Figure 6. LEV II/ZEV Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle Sales,2007 through 2020

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Perc

en

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

Sale

sPZEV

AT-PZEV

ZEV


emissions. At its heart, the program is a“technology forcing” program—one thatattempts to jump-start advanced technol-ogy vehicle development and the adop-tion of these technologies in themainstream auto market. That beingsaid, however, adoption of the programwill likely bring about significant long-term pollution reductions as technologi-cal changes brought about by theprogram spread to other vehicles in theConnecticut car and truck fleet.

An example of the potential power ofthe program to hasten technologicalchange is the development of hybrid ve-

hicles. California’s adoption of the origi-nal ZEV requirement sparked public andprivate-sector research efforts into thedevelopment of advanced batteries andelectric-drive technologies. While thegeneration of full-function electric ve-hicles that resulted from that research—such as Honda’s EV-Plus and GeneralMotors’s EV1—were not sold in largequantities, the research effort drove ad-vances in electric vehicle technology thatfacilitated the birth of the popular hy-brid-electric systems that now powerhundreds of thousands of vehicles world-wide and have laid the groundwork for

Additional Uncertainty: Alternative Compliance Paths

In addition to the compliance flexibility that California designed into LEV II/ZEV, Connecticut

offers manufacturers two early compliance options that introduce greater uncertainty about how

automakers will choose to comply with the program’s requirements, especially in the early years

of implementation.

Both alternative compliance paths allow manufacturers to earn credit for LEV II/ZEV-compliant

vehicles placed in Connecticut or California before the program begins in Connecticut.37 In one

alternative compliance option, automakers can receive credit in Connecticut for credits earned in

California by selling advanced-technology vehicles before LEV II/ZEV began there. On January

1, 2008, any credits that a manufacturer has available in California can be counted in Connecti-

cut also, adjusted for Connecticut’s smaller vehicle market. The manufacturer can then use

those credits to offset requirements of LEV II/ZEV in Connecticut.

Connecticut’s other alternative compliance option encourages manufacturers to sell cleaner

cars in Connecticut as soon as possible. Each low- or zero-emission car sold in Connecticut

before LEV II/ZEV officially begins in model year 2008 will reduce the number of vehicles the

manufacturer must sell later. For introducing cleaner vehicles in Connecticut before being re-

quired to do so, an automaker earns a slight bonus. For example, an AT-PZEV sold in model

year 2005 is credited as if it were 2.25 AT-PZEVs sold in 2009 and a PZEV sold in model year

2005 earns 1.5 credits. If a manufacturer accrues fewer credits through this alternative compli-

ance option than it would have had available under the first option discussed above, Connecticut

will proportionally credit the automaker for its California credits to make up the difference.

The alternative compliance paths will reduce the number of advanced technology vehicles that

manufacturers must sell in Connecticut versus the conventional compliance paths available

through the California version of the program. However, because of the many variables involved

(including manufacturers’ sales plans in both Connecticut and California) it is difficult to make a

reliable estimate of how great those reductions will be. As a result, we do not factor the availabil-

ity of Connecticut’s alternative compliance paths into our analysis, meaning that the real carbon

dioxide emission reductions achieved by the program could be lower than estimated here.


recent advances in fuel-cell vehicle tech-nology.39

Similarly, the current form of LEV II/ZEV is designed to encourage continuedinvestment in hybrid-electric and hydro-gen fuel-cell vehicle development andmay lead to the development of newtypes of vehicles (such as “plug-in hy-brids” that combine the benefits of bat-tery-electric and hybrid-electric vehicles)with significant benefits for the climate.Once developed and offered to consum-ers, it is possible that these vehicles couldcome to represent a far greater share ofthe new car market than is estimatedhere.

LEV II/ZEV Impacts:Short Term

The short-term impact of LEV II/ZEVon carbon dioxide emissions in Connecti-cut will largely be determined by howautomakers choose to comply with the

program’s flexible provisions. There arealmost infinite options available toautomakers for compliance—however, itis likely that one or several technologieswill dominate the mix of vehicles certi-fied under the program.

We assume that automakers will takemaximum advantage of the ability tomeet LEV II/ZEV requirements withPZEVs and AT-PZEVs. We also assumethat vehicles sold to meet AT-PZEV re-quirements are hybrid-electric vehicleswith similar technological characteristicsto the Toyota Prius. We assume that anyvehicles sold to meet pure ZEV require-ments are hydrogen fuel-cell vehicleswhose fuel is generated from natural gas.We use conservative assumptions aboutthe carbon dioxide emission reductionsthat could result from hybrid or fuel-cellvehicles. And, as noted above, we do notfactor the availability of Connecticut’salternative compliance paths into ouranalysis.

Using these assumptions, implementa-tion of the program in Connecticut asscheduled beginning in the 2008 modelyear would reduce light-duty vehicle car-bon dioxide emissions by about 1.2 per-cent versus base case projections by2020—for a total reduction in emissionsof about 0.04 MMTCE. (See Figure 7.)

Connecticut’s adoption of the Califor-nia Clean Cars standards will result in

Photo: Sandy Ridlington

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

E)

Base Case Projection

LEV II/ZEV

Figure 7. Projected Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions UnderLEV II/ZEV (Light-Duty Vehicles)


reduced global warming and toxic pol-lution from vehicles as the LEV II/ZEVprogram takes effect. ImplementingCalifornia’s vehicle global warming pol-lution standards will provide even greateremission reductions.

Vehicle Global WarmingPollution Standards

In July 2002, California adopted thefirst law to control carbon dioxide emis-sions from automobiles. Beginning inmodel year 2009, automakers will haveto adhere to fleet average emission lim-its for carbon dioxide similar to currentlimits on smog-forming and other pol-lutants. Emissions of global warmingpollution will fall and consumers willsave money.

The California legislation requiresCARB to propose limits that “achievethe maximum feasible and cost effectivereduction of greenhouse gas emissionsfrom motor vehicles.” Limits on vehicletravel, new gasoline or vehicle taxes, orlimitations on ownership of SUVs orother light trucks cannot be imposed toattain the new standards.40

In September 2004, CARB adoptedrules for implementation of the globalwarming pollution standards. As re-quired by the initial legislation, CARBhas submitted the regulations to the Cali-fornia Legislature for review during2005. Those proposed rules provided thebasis of our analysis here.

In developing the global warming pol-lution standards, the CARB staff re-viewed several analyses of the types oftechnologies that could be used toachieve “maximum feasible and cost ef-fective” reductions in global warmingpollution from vehicles. CARB’s pro-posal estimates that near-term technolo-gies could reduce average globalwarming pollution from cars and thelightest light trucks by 25 percent and

from heavier light trucks by 18 percent.Over the medium term (2013 to 2016),cost-effective reductions of 34 percent forcars and smaller light trucks and 25 per-cent for heavier light trucks are feasible.41

The technological changes needed toachieve these reductions (such as five andsix-speed automatic transmissions andimproved electrical systems) will likelyresult in modest increases in vehicle coststhat would be more than recouped overtime by consumers in the form of reducedfuel expenses. CARB projects that carsand the lightest light trucks attaining the34 percent reduction in global warmingpollution required by 2016 would costan average of $1,064 more for consum-ers, while heavier light trucks achievingthe required 25 percent reduction wouldcost about $1,029 more.42

However, the agency also estimatesthat the rules will significantly reduceoperating costs for new vehicles. Thoughconsumers will face higher monthly loanpayments when purchasing vehicles thatcomply with the standards, those in-creased costs will be more than offset bylower operating expenses. For example,a consumer who buys a new car in 2016will pay $20 more per month on the carloan but will save $23 per month in op-erating expenses, for a total savings of$3 per month. After the loan is paid off,the consumer will save the full $23 permonth. Drivers who purchase a lighttruck or who pay for the vehicle in cashwill experience greater savings.43 (SeeTable 1.) These savings assume gasolinecosts of $1.74 per gallon.44 Higher priceswill increase the savings to consumers.CARB also projects that the net impactof the standards to the state’s economywill be positive, suggesting that Con-necticut could save money while at thesame time reducing the state’s overallemissions of global warming gases.45

Assuming that the September 2004version of the global warming pollution


Figure 8. Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Under Global WarmingPollution Standards (Light-Duty Vehicles)

standards is adopted as proposed, whenConnecticut implements those standardson schedule beginning with the 2009model year the resulting reductions inglobal warming pollution would be sig-nificant. Compared to the base case pro-jection, the emission standards wouldreduce light-duty carbon dioxide emis-sions by 12 percent by 2020—for a to-tal reduction of 0.43 MMTCE. (SeeFigure 8.)

The Need for AdditionalActions

Implementing the Clean Carsprogram’s LEV II/ZEV and global warm-ing pollution standards can contributesignificantly to Connecticut’s efforts toreduce global warming pollution fromthe transportation sector. With both

components in effect, emissions fromlight-duty cars and trucks would be 0.6percent lower 2020 than they were in2000, compared to 13 percent greater ifno action is taken.

Though it yields significant progressand is a major step forward, implement-ing the Clean Cars program will not beenough to reduce vehicle emissions to1990 levels by 2010 or to 10 percentbelow 1990 levels by 2020. Should Con-necticut seek to achieve reductions forcars and light trucks similar to thosecalled for in the regional Climate ChangeAction Plan, the state would need toachieve an additional 0.30 MMTCE ofreductions by 2010 and 0.43 MMTCEof reductions by 2020—a level of sav-ings roughly equivalent to that producedby adoption of these programs.

A number of policy options exist forConnecticut to close this gap, including:• Incentives for individuals and fleets to

purchase vehicles with lower carbonemissions. One possible approach isto offer clean car incentives whichwould give a rebate to car buyers whopurchase vehicles that emit less glo-bal warming pollution. The rebatecould be funded by a fee on purchas-ers of less efficient vehicles and thus

Table 1. Net Savings for Consumer UnderGlobal Warming Pollution Standards in 201646

Car Light Truck

Increased Car Cost $1,064 $1,029

Increased Monthly Loan Payment $20 $19

Decreased Monthly Operating Cost $23 $26

Monthly Net Savings $3 $7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

E)

Base CaseProjection

LEV II/ZEV andGlobal WarmingPollutionStandards


could be revenue neutral for the state.The policy is included in the state’sClimate Change Action Plan and theDepartment of Environmental Protec-tion is considering how a programmight be implemented.47 Other NewEngland states are also consideringsuch a program.

• Cents-per-mile insurance, which canbe offered by private insurers and al-lows drivers to purchase vehicle in-surance by the mile. Such a programmakes drivers more aware of the fullcosts of each mile driven and can re-duce excessive driving. It can also pro-vide a benefit to senior citizens andothers who drive less than average.This policy is included on the state’slist of actions to be implemented bythe end of 2005 or as soon as pos-sible.

• Improved transit service. On the state’slist of “immediate” action items isenhancing both bus rapid transit andrail service to reduce the amount citi-zens need to drive.

• Promote smart growth. The state hascommitted to reducing the growth invehicle miles traveled by directing statefunding to areas considered appropri-ate for growth, expanding technicalassistance in growth planning, and ex-panding bicycle and pedestrian infra-structure.

The federal government also could as-sist Connecticut’s efforts to reduce glo-bal warming pollution throughincreasing the federal corporate averagefuel economy (CAFE) standard.48


POLICY FINDINGS

Attaining the reductions in carbondioxide emissions required ofConnecticut under the regional

Climate Change Action Plan will requiresignificant actions to reduce emissionsfrom light-duty vehicles.

To achieve this goal:• The state should follow through on

its commitment to implement theClean Cars program’s global warm-ing pollution standards before Decem-ber 31, 2005.

• Connecticut should take aggressiveaction to reduce transportation-sectorglobal warming pollution, includingactions that speed the deployment ofenvironmentally preferable vehicles(such as hybrids with low greenhousegas emissions), reduce the rate ofgrowth in vehicle travel, and encour-age improvements in the fuel efficiencyof conventional vehicles.


Projections of future global warm-ing pollution from automobiles de-pend a great deal on the assump-

tions used. This section details the as-sumptions we made about future trendsand explains the methodology we usedto estimate the impact of various pro-grams.

Baseline Light-Duty VehicleCarbon Dioxide Emissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks) inConnecticut in 1990 and 2000 werebased on state-specific motor gasolineusage data from U.S. Department of En-ergy, Energy Information Administration(EIA), State Energy Data 2000 Con-sumption, downloaded fromw w w. e i a . d o e . g o v / e m e u / s t a t e s /_use_multistate.html, 7 December 2004.Fuel consumption data for the transpor-tation sector in BTU was converted tocarbon dioxide emissions based on con-version factors from EIA, Annual EnergyOutlook 2003, Appendix H and EIA,Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in theUnited States 2001, Appendix B. Theproportion of transportation-sector gaso-line emissions attributable to light-dutyvehicles was estimated by dividing energyuse by light-duty vehicles by total trans-portation-sector motor gasoline use asreported in EIA, Annual Energy Outlook2003.

Vehicle-Miles Traveled

Historic and projected vehicle-milestraveled data for Connecticut were ob-tained from Paul Buckley, TransportationSupervising Planner, Connecticut Depart-ment of Transportation, 24 November2004.

VMT Percentages by VehicleType

To estimate the percentage of vehicle-miles traveled accounted for by cars andlight-duty trucks, we relied on twosources of data: actual VMT splits byvehicle type for 2000 through 2002 fromthe Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics series of reports andprojections of future VMT splits outputfrom the EPA’s MOBILE6 mobile sourceemission estimating model. (Connecti-cut-specific data on VMT splits are un-available but the state has a higher ratioof registered cars to trucks than the na-tional average, according to FederalHighway Administration, Highway Sta-tistics 2002, October 2003, Table MV-1. This should make our analysis of theprogram’s benefits slightly lower thanwill likely occur because per-mile emis-sions reductions for cars are greater thanfor trucks and total emission reductionsare undercounted in Connecticut by us-ing national figures for car and lighttruck registrations.)

EPA’s projections of the VMT splitamong cars and light-duty trucks assignsignificantly more VMT to light-dutytrucks than has been the case over thepast several years, according to FHWAdata. However, EPA’s long-term projec-tion that light trucks will eventually rep-resent 60 percent of light-duty vehiclesales by 2008 appears to be reasonablein light of the continued trend towardsales of light trucks.

In order to estimate a trend that re-flects both the more car-heavy currentmakeup of VMT and the long-term trendtoward increasing travel in light trucks,we created two curves, one extrapolat-ing the continued linear decline in thecar portion of light-duty VMT based ontrends in FHWA data from 1990 to 2002

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY


Figure 9. Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle-Miles Traveled in Cars

and another using the EPA MOBILE6estimates. We then assumed that the splitin VMT would trend toward the EPAestimate over time, so that by 2020, carsare responsible for approximately 40percent of light-duty VMT. (See Figure9.)

VMT in the light-truck category werefurther disaggregated into VMT by“light” light trucks (in the CaliforniaLDT1 category) and heavier light trucks(California LDT2s), per EPA, Fleet Char-acterization Data for MOBILE6: Devel-opment and Use of Age Distributions,Average Annual Mileage AccumulationRates, and Projected Vehicle Counts forUse in MOBILE6, September 2001.

VMT Percentages by VehicleAge

Vehicle-miles traveled by age of vehiclewere determined based on VMT accu-mulation data presented in EPA, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6:Development and Use of Age Distribu-tions, Average Annual Mileage Accumu-lation Rates, and Projected VehicleCounts for Use in MOBILE6, Septem-ber 2001.

Vehicle Carbon DioxideEmissions

Per-mile carbon dioxide emissionsfrom vehicles were based on assumedlevels of carbon dioxide emissions pergallon of gasoline (or equivalent amountof other fuel), coupled with assumptionsas to miles-per-gallon fuel efficiency.

For conventional vehicles, a gallon ofgasoline was assumed to produce 8,869grams (19.6 pounds) of carbon dioxide.This figure is based on carbon coeffi-cients and heat content data from U.S.Department of Energy, Energy Informa-tion Administration, Emissions ofGreenhouse Gases in the United States2001, Appendix B. Fuel economy esti-mates were based on EPA laboratory fueleconomy values from EPA, Light-DutyAutomotive Technology and FuelEconomy Trends: 1975 Through 2004,April 2004, multiplied by a degradationfactor of 0.84 for years 2000 through2020, based on the ratio of revised mpgto lab tested mpg as reported by EPA,Light-Duty Automotive Technology andFuel Economy Trends: 1975-2004, April2004. (The degradation factor representsthe degree to which real-world fuel

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Perc

en

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

VM

T

Trend Based on FHWAData

Base Case Projection

EPA Projection


economy falls below that reported as aresult of EPA testing.)

For hybrid-electric vehicles used tocomply with AT-PZEV requirements,fuel economy was estimated to exceedthat of conventional vehicles by 30 per-cent, per National Research Council,National Academy of Engineering, TheHydrogen Economy: Opportunities,Costs, Barriers and R&D Needs, theNational Academies Press, 2004. Thissame document provided the assumptionthat hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles wouldachieve 58 percent greater fuel economythan conventional vehicles. This figurewas then input into the Argonne Na-tional Laboratory’s Greenhouse GasesRegulated Emissions and Energy Use inTransportation (GREET) model version1.5a to produce an estimated grams CO2/gasoline gallon equivalent for fuel-cellvehicles of 3,816 grams, which was thenused to estimate emissions from hydro-gen fuel-cell vehicles manufactured tocomply with the ZEV program. (Fuel-cycle emissions from hydrogen fuel-cellvehicles were used in lieu of directtailpipe emissions since fuel-cell vehiclesemit no pollution from the tailpipe andit was assumed that the hydrogen fuel—and its associated emissions—would becreated within Connecticut. Estimatedemissions from electricity used to gener-ate hydrogen were not adjusted forConnecticut’s power mix.)

For the global warming gas emissionstandards, we assumed percentage reduc-tions in per-mile vehicle emissions asdescribed in California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Air Resources Board,Staff Report: Initial Statement of Rea-sons for Proposed Rulemaking, PublicHearing to Consider Adoption of Regu-lations to Control Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 6 Au-gust 2004.

LEV II/ZEV ProgramImplementation

In calculating emission reductions re-sulting from LEV II/ZEV, we assumedimplementation of the program begin-ning in model year 2008 with the samerequirements as the California program.Vehicles meeting the AT-PZEV standardswere assumed to be “Type D” Hybrids(similar to the Toyota Prius), while ve-hicles meeting pure ZEV standards wereassumed to be hydrogen fuel-cell vehicleswhose fuel was produced from naturalgas.

Percentages of vehicles meeting PZEV,AT-PZEV and ZEV criteria were esti-mated in the following manner:• Light-duty vehicle sales in Connecti-

cut for each category (cars and lighttrucks) were estimated based on year2003 new vehicle registration figuresfrom Alliance of Automobile Manu-facturers, Light Truck Country, down-loaded from autoalliance.org/archives/000141.html, 27 August 2004, withthe light truck category divided intoheavy and light light-duty trucks us-ing EPA fleet composition estimatesas described above. These figures werethen multiplied by the percentage ofsales subject to the ZEV program foreach year.

• This number was multiplied by 0.9 toaccount for the six-year time lag incalculating the sales base subject to theZEV program. (For example, amanufacturer’s requirements in the2009 through 2011 model years arebased on percentages of sales duringmodel years 2003 through 2005.)

• Where necessary, these values weremultiplied by the percentage of vehiclessupplied by major manufacturers ver-sus all manufacturers as calculated from


Ward’s Communications, 2003 Ward’sAutomotive Yearbook, 233. (Non-ma-jor manufacturers may comply with theentire ZEV program requirement bysupplying PZEVs.)

• This value was then multiplied by thepercentage sales requirement to arriveat the number of ZEV program cred-its that would need to be accumulatedin each model year.

• The credit requirement was divided bythe number of credits received by eachvehicle supplied as described in Cali-fornia Environmental ProtectionAgency, Air Resources Board, FinalRegulation Order: The 2003 Amend-ments to the California Zero EmissionVehicle Regulation, 9 January 2004.

• The resulting number of vehicles wasthen divided by total light-duty vehiclesales to arrive at the percentage of salesrequired of each vehicle type.

• No pure ZEVs were assumed to berequired for sale in Connecticut untilthe 2012 model year. For the 2012through 2017 model years, in whichthe pure ZEV requirement is based ona specific number of California sales,we divided the annual pure ZEV re-quirement in the California regula-tions by the number of new vehiclesregistered in California in 2001 perWard’s Communications, 2002Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, 272.We assumed that the same percentagewould apply to vehicle sales in Con-necticut.

It was assumed that manufacturerswould comply with ZEV and AT-PZEVrequirements through the sale of fuel-celland hybrid passenger cars. While heavierlight trucks are also covered by LEV II/ZEV, manufacturers have the flexibilityto use credits accumulated from the saleof cars to achieve the light-truck require-

ment. Percentages of various vehicletypes assumed to be required under LEVII/ZEV are depicted in Figure 6, page 18(assuming a roughly 60/40 percentagesplit between light-truck sales and carsales throughout the entire period).

Fleet Emissions Projections

Based on the above data, three sce-narios were created: a “Base Case” sce-nario based on projected trends in vehiclefuel economy, VMT and vehicle mix; a“LEV II/ZEV” scenario based on theimplementation scenario describedabove; and a “Global Warming Pollu-tion Standards” scenario based on thepercentage emission reductions proposedby the CARB staff in August 2004. Eachscenario began with data from 2000 andcontinued through 2020.

Projected emissions were based on theyear-to-year increase (or decrease) inemissions derived from the estimationtechniques described above. These year-to-year changes were then applied to the2000 baseline emission level to createprojections through 2020.

Other Assumptions

In addition to the above, we made thefollowing assumptions:

• Rebound effects – Research has shownthat improved vehicle fuel efficiencyoften results in an increase in vehicle-miles traveled. By reducing the mar-ginal cost of driving, efforts toimprove efficiency provide an eco-nomic incentive for additional vehicletravel. Studies have found that this“rebound effect” may reduce the car-bon dioxide emission savings of fueleconomy-improving policies by asmuch as 20 to 30 percent.49 To ac-count for this effect, carbon dioxidereductions in each of the scenarioswere discounted by 20 percent. Thisestimate is likely quite conservative:


in its own analysis using California-specific income and transportationdata, CARB estimated a rebound ef-fect ranging from 7 percent to less than1 percent.50

• Mix shifting – We assumed that nei-ther of the policies under study wouldresult in changes in the class of vehiclespurchased by Connecticut residents,or the relative amount that they aredriven (rebound effect excluded). Inaddition, we assumed that the vehicleage distributions assumed by EPA re-main constant under each of the

policies. In other words, we assumedthat any increase in vehicle pricesbrought about by the global warmingemission standards would not dis-suade consumers from purchasingnew vehicles or encourage them topurchase light trucks when they wouldotherwise purchase cars (or viceversa). Mix shifting impacts such asthese are quite complex and model-ing them was beyond the scope of thisreport, but they do have the potentialto make a significant impact on fu-ture carbon dioxide emissions.


NOTES

1. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,IPCC Third Assessment Report—Climate Change2001: Summary for Policy Makers, 2001.

2. Ibid.

3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Glo-bal Warming-State Impacts: Connecticut, Officeof Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, September1997.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

6. New England Regional Assessment Group,U.S. Global Change Research Program, Prepar-ing for a Changing Climate: The Potential Con-sequences of Climate Variability and Change.Foundation Report, September 2001.

7. See note 3.

8. Impacts are from U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Global Warming-State Impacts:Connecticut, Office of Policy, Planning, andEvaluation, September 1997; and New EnglandRegional Assessment Group, U.S. Global ChangeResearch Program, Preparing for a Changing Cli-mate: The Potential Consequences of ClimateVariability and Change. Foundation Report, Sep-tember 2001.

9. Jennifer Weeks, Susan Green, and MarikaTatsutani, Northeast States for Coordinated AirUse Management, Connecticut Greenhouse GasInventory, 1990-2000, August 2003.

10. Governor’s Steering Committee on ClimateChange, Connecticut Climate Change ActionPlan, January 2005.

11. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Re-garding the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effec-tive Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissionsfrom Motor Vehicles, 14 June 2004, 8.

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, In-ventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions andSinks, 1990-2002, 15 April 2004.

13. James Hansen and Larissa Nazarenko, “SootClimate Forcing Via Snow and Ice Albedos,” Pro-ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,101(2), 2004.

14. See note 9.

15. Based on data compiled for Clean Water Fundand the National Association of State PIRGs,Connecticut Responds to Global Warming, Spring2004.

16. See note 9.

17. Conference of New England Governors andEastern Canadian Premiers, Climate Change Ac-tion Plan 2001, August 2001.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid.

20. Connecticut General Assembly, Public ActNo. 04-252, An Act Concerning Climate Change,signed into law on 14 June 2004.

21. See note 10.

22. VMT estimates and projections from PaulBuckley, Transportation Supervising Planner,Connecticut Department of Transportation, per-sonal communication, 24 November 2004.

23. Ibid.

24. Stacy C. Davis, Susan W. Deigel, Center forTransportation Analysis, Oak Ridge NationalLaboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book:Edition 22, September 2002, Chapter 7. The fed-eral government has approved an slight increasein light truck CAFE standards to take effect forthe 2005 model year.

25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel EconomyTrends: 1975 Through 2004, Appendix C, April2004. The federal law that established CAFE stan-dards also established the means for testing ofvehicles to determine compliance with the stan-dards. It has long been recognized that these test-ing methods overstate the “real world” fueleconomy of vehicles. EPA has begun to includeadjusted figures in its reporting of fuel economytrends and, in its 2004 report, included an esti-mate of real-world vehicle mileage based on in-creases in the percentage of urban driving. In thisreport, all discussions of vehicle fuel economy willrefer to “real world” efficiency levels rather than“EPA rated” levels.

26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel EconomyTrends: 1975 Through 2004, Appendix C, April2004.

27. Real world fuel economy: U.S. Environmen-tal Protection Agency, Light-Duty AutomotiveTechnology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975Through 2004, Appendix C, April 2004. CAFEstandards: U.S. Department of Transportation,Summary of Fuel Economy Performance, March2003.

28. See note 26.

29. Ibid.

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6: Develop-ment and Use of Age Distributions, Average An-nual Mileage Accumulation Rates, and ProjectedVehicle Counts for Use in MOBILE6, September2001; MOBILE6 run conducted by MASSPIRGEducation Fund based on national defaults, Janu-ary 2003.

31. Based on Jennifer Weeks, Susan Green, andMarika Tatsutani, Northeast States for Coordi-nated Air Use Management, Connecticut Green-house Gas Inventory, 1990-2000, August 2003.

32. See “Assumptions and Methodology” formethod of calculation.


33. State of California, Air Resources Board,Resolution 03-4, 24 April 2003.

34. 2004 sales: Toyota, Toyota Reaches Two Mil-lion in Sales For The First Time in 47-Year His-tory (press release), 4 January 2005; Honda,American Honda Sets New All-Time Sales Record(press release), 4 January 2005; and SteveGeimann, Bloomberg, “Ford Expands Lineup ofGas-Electric Hybrid Vehicles (Update 3),” 9 Janu-ary 2005. 2003 sales: John Porretto, “High FuelPrices Pumping Up Hybrid Sales,” AssociatedPress, 9 May 2004.

35. California Air Resources Board, Clean Ve-hicle Search results for hybrid-electric vehicles,downloaded from www.driveclean.ca.gov/en/gv/vsearch/cleansearch_result.asp?vehicletypeid=7, 1July 2004; Ford Motor Company, 2005 FordEscape Hybrid Launches, 6 August 2004.

36. California Air Resources Board, UpcomingClean Cars: Hybrids, downloaded fromwww.dr ivec l ean . ca .gov / en /gv /v s ea rch /upcoming.asp, 30 June 2004.

37. State of Connecticut, Section 22a-174-36b,Low Emission Vehicles II Program, 3 December2004.

38. Based on estimated fuel-efficiency improve-ment factor of 1.45 from hybrid-electric vehiclesversus conventional vehicles in National ResearchCouncil, National Academy of Engineering, TheHydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Bar-riers and R&D Needs, The National AcademiesPress, 2004.

39. The reasons behind the lack of market suc-cess of the EV-Plus, EV1 and similar electric ve-hicles are complex, and may have much to dowith automakers’ failure to properly market theirvehicles to the public.

40. California Assembly Bill 1493, adopted 29July 2002.

41. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004. Earlier analysis byCARB suggested that even deeper cuts in vehicleemissions could be made more quickly. CARB’sinitial draft proposal for implementation of thestandards called for cost-effective emission reduc-tions of 22 percent from cars and 24 percent fromlight trucks in the near term. Over the mediumterm (2012 to 2014), cost-effective reductions of32 percent for cars and 30 percent for light-truckswere deemed feasible. In addition, the standardswere assumed to be phased in much more quicklythan under CARB’s most recent proposal. SeeCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency, AirResources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Regard-ing the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effective

Reduction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions fromMotor Vehicles, 14 June 2004.

42. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Addendum Presenting andDescribing Revisions to: Initial Statement of Rea-sons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearingto Consider Adoption of Regulations to ControlGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles,10 September 2004.

43. Catherine Witherspoon, California Environ-mental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board,Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emis-sions from Motor Vehicles, presentation toSTAPPA/ALAPCO Fall Membership Meeting, 23-27 October 2004.

44. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Technical Support Docu-ment for Staff Proposal Regarding Reduction ofGreenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles:Economic Impacts of the Climate Change Regu-lations, 6 August 2004.

45. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004; California Environ-mental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board,Addendum Presenting and Describing Revisionsto: Initial Statement of Reasons for ProposedRulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider Adop-tion of Regulations to Control Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 10 September2004.

46. See note 42.

47. Short Term Actions for Implementation toReduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Connecti-cut—Initial Progress, Governor’s Steering Com-mittee on Climate Change, 15 November 2004.

48. For a fuller list of transportation policy op-tions, see National Association of State PIRGs,Natural Resources Council of Maine, A Blueprintfor Action: Policy Options to Reduce Maine’sContribution to Global Warming, Summer 2004.

49. Paul Schimek, “Gasoline and Travel DemandModels Using Time Series and Cross-Section Datafrom the United States,” Transportation ResearchRecord, No. 1558 (1996), 83; U.S. General Ac-counting Office, Energy Policy Act of 1992: Lim-ited Progress in Acquiring Alternative Fuel Ve-hicles and Reaching Fuel Goals, February 2000.

50. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004.

cars and global warming - amazon web services cars and global warming the authors wish to...

Documents