The 2012‐2025 Light‐Duty Vehicle Standards g yand the Mid Term Evaluation

Edward NamDirector, Air Quality Modeling Center

EPA Office of Transportation and Air QualityEPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality

CRC Advanced Fuel and Engine Efficiency WorkshopCRC Advanced Fuel and Engine Efficiency WorkshopFebruary 25, 2014 

Greenhouse Gas Standards

• Cars:  – 5.0% average rate of improvement for 2017‐2025T k• Trucks: – 3.5% average rate of improvement for 2017‐2021– 5.0% average rate of improvement for 2022‐2025

• Projected 2025 fleet performance of 163 g/mile CO2, equivalent to 54.5 MPG (if from fuel economy improvements)

– 2025 Car target = 143 g/mi CO2– 2025 Truck target = 203 g/mi CO2

R l W ld GHG i 223 / i ( i t 40 )• Real‐World GHG is 223 g/mi (equiv to ~40mpg)– Excluding A/C improvements, and include real‐world factors such as road grade, tire 

pressure, wind, road surface, fuel, temperature, etc  2

Standards are Based on Vehicles’ Footprints

• Each manufacturer has a unique car fleet standard and unique truck fleet standard, each derived from the footprint curves, based on the sales‐weighted distribution of vehicles it produced

• Footprint curves assign a specific CO2 or MPG target for each vehicle based on its footprint (roughly the area between the tires)

• No vehicle need meet its target.  Compliance applies to fleet’s average. performanceg p pp g p

Vehicle Type Example ModelsExample Model Footprint (sq. ft.)

EPA CO2 Emissions Target (g/mi)*

NHTSA Fuel Economy Target (mpg)*

Example Passenger CarsExample Passenger CarsCompact car Honda Fit 40 131 61.1Mid‐size car Ford Fusion 46 147 54.9Full‐size car Chrysler 300 53 170 48.0Example Light duty TrucksExample Light‐duty Trucks

Small SUV 4WD Ford Escape 43 170 47.5

Midsize crossover Nissan Murano 49 188 43.4Minivan Toyota Sienna 56 209 39.2

3

Large pickup truck Chevy Silverado(extended cab, 6.5 foot box)

67 252 33.0

* In real-world, typically CO2 is 25% higher and fuel economy is 20% lower than the values here

Projected Benefit of Light‐duty Rules onLight‐duty Vehicle Oil Consumption

15.0

20.0

MBP

D) LDV BAU pre‐rules

+ 2012‐2016 LDV rule+ 2017‐2025 LDV rule

10.0

mption (M

5.0

il consum

4

0.02000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

o

Combined Benefits of Rules

Current Imports

OPEC: 4.3 MBPD

Persian Gulf: 2.3 MBPD

20252 1 MBPD

20303 2 MBPD

20404 8 MBPD

5

2.1 MBPD 3.2 MBPD 4.8 MBPD

6 billion metric tons of GHG over lifetime of 2012-2025 vehicles

Costs and Benefits for Consumers

• Cost for Technologies– Projected to add ~ $1,800 to Manufacturer cost

C t t f 2012 2016– Costs on top of 2012‐2016 

• Savings for Consumers Significant savings to consumers at the pump:– Significant savings to consumers at the pump:• Lifetime fuel savings of $5,700 to $7,400• Net lifetime savings of $3,400 to $5,000

A i $3 87 i i 2025 i hi h if i i• Assuming $3.87 gas price in 2025, so savings even higher if gas prices rise

– Payback of less than 3.5 years for a MY2025 vehicle– Consumers buying new vehicle on loan will save $12 per month, or y g $ p ,

$140 per year, over loan period (since monthly fuel savings more than offset higher loan payment due to increased vehicle cost)

•6

Vehicle Technologies 

• A wide range of technologies is available for automakers to meet the new standards

Ad d li i d t i i hi l d ti– Advanced gasoline engines and transmissions, vehicle mass reduction, improved aerodynamics, lower rolling resistance tires, diesel engines, more efficient accessories, improvements in air conditioning systems

• Automakers expected to increase electric technologies, such as start‐stop systems, mild and strong hybrids, plug‐in hybrids, and all electric vehicles

• However, we project that automakers could meet the standards largely through advancements in internal combustion engines

Th i j h k ld l d d b– The agencies project that automakers could only need to produce about 1‐3% of the 2025 new vehicle fleet as EVs/PHEVs to meet the 2025 standards 7

EPA Technology Projections

8

EPA Technology Projections

9

EPA Technology Projections

10

What Industry Leaders are Saying

• “Absolutely, …fuel efficiency is the number one reason to buy….This is fantastic, this is why we feel so good that we have worked together to have regulations in line with what our customers really do want.”

Al M l ll CEO f F d

• “This standard is 14 years out. If you start giving up on

- Alan Mulally, CEO of FordSeptember 18, 2012

This standard is 14 years out. If you start giving up on projects that are 14 years out, we might as well choose another occupation.”

11

- Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat-ChryslerFebruary 4, 2012

What are Recent Trends Showing?100%

80%

100%

75

Adjusted Fuel Economy

24mpg• Adjusted fuel economy, weight &

40%

60%

geS

ince

197economy, weight &

horsepower

0%

20%

rcen

tCha

ng

Horsepower

Reference EPA report:• Light‐Duty Automotive 

Technology Carbon Di id E i i d

−20%

Per WeightDioxide Emissions, and 

Fuel Economy Trends: 1975‐2013

12

−40%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Model Year

Trends by  15

20

25Adjusted FuelEconomy (MPG)

Car Car SUV Truck SUV Pickup Minivan/Van

yVehicle Class 10

15

Footprint (sq ft)50556065

Weight (lb)

300035004000450050005500

4550

Horsepower

25003000

150200250300

0−to−60 Time(sec)

10

12

14

100

13

197519801985199019952000200520102015197519801985199019952000200520102015197519801985199019952000200520102015197519801985199019952000200520102015197519801985199019952000200520102015

Model Year

Historical Fleet Penetration Rate of Technologies

Fuel Injection

Lockup

Front

100%

Multi-Valve

FrontWheelDrive75%

n S

hare

50%

Pro

duct

ion

25%Variable Valve Timing

14

0%

Years after First Use

0 10 20 30 40

Technology Adoption Rates by Manufacturer

All ManufacturersHyundai

NissanChrysler−Fiat

HondaFord

ToyotaGM

GM

Fuel Injection

Rates by ManufacturerAll Manufacturers

HyundaiNissan

Chrysler−FiatHonda

FordToyota

GM

HondaFord

ToyotaGM

Multi-Valve

Lockup

• Industry averages do not

ufac

ture

r All ManufacturersHyundai

NissanChrysler−Fiat

Honda

HyundaiNissan

Chrysler−FiatHonda

FordToyota

GM

Multi-Valve

Variable ValveTiming

Industry averages do not tell the whole story

• Any single manufacturer

Man All Manufacturers

Hyundai

All ManufacturersHyundai

NissanChrysler−Fiat

HondaFord

ToyotaGM

AdvancedTransmission

• Any single manufacturer may adopt technologies at a different time and at

All ManufacturersHyundai

NissanChrysler−Fiat

HondaFord

ToyotaGM

F dToyota

GM

Gasoline DirectInjection

at a different time and at a different rate

All ManufacturersHyundai

NissanChrysler−Fiat

HondaFord

1980 1990 2000 2010

Model Year

Turbocharged

15

Technology Changes from 2008 to 2013

100%MY 2008MY 2013

75%

Share

50%

od

uct

ion

S

25%Pro

16

0%

VVT Multi-Valve

GDI Turbo CD Hybrid Diesel 6speed

7+speed

CVT

50

60

od

els

MY 2008MY 2013

Includes city/hwy combined MPG estimates for gasoline diesel and hybrid electric vehicles and

20

30

40

mb

er

ofM

o

Vehicle Models Meeting Fuel Economy Thresholds 

gasoline, diesel and hybrid electric vehicles and MPGe estimates for EVs and PHEVs

0

10

Pickups and SUVs ≥ 25 MPG Cars ≥ 30 MPG Cars ≥ 40 MPGN

umin MY 2008 and MY 2013

pminivans/vans ≥ 20 MPG

Advanced Technology and  354045

dels

MY 2008MY 2013

Alternative Fuel Vehicle Models in MY 2008 and MY 2013 15

20253035

mb

er

ofM

o

05

1015

Diesel Hybrid EV PHEV CNG

Nu

m

My 2013 Vehicle Production Share that Meet Future CO2 Targets*g

25%

30%

• By projected sales20%

Fuel

EVCNG

y p j• By technology type• With projected A/C

10%

15% PHEVHEVDieselGasoline

• With projected A/C credits

5%

Gasoline

0%

2016 2017 2020 2025

Target Year

• *manufacturer fleets are subject to the standards, not individual vehicles

18

LDV GHG Rule: Midterm Evaluation

• EPA, NHTSA, and CARB committed to a midterm evaluation of the standards for MYs 2022 2025evaluation of the standards for MYs 2022‐2025 vehiclesTi i• Timing:– Agencies will issue draft Technical Assessment Report by N b 2017November 2017

– EPA final determination of whether standards should be revised by April 2018 (after public comment)revised by April 2018 (after public comment)

19

Mid Term EvaluationMY 2017 MY 2025

Standards final unless changedby rulemaking

MY 2017-2021Final

MY 2022-2025Augural

+ +

g

Joint Technical + +20

Assessment Report(draft no later than November 15, 2017)

EPA will Consider a Range of Factors• The feasibility and practicability of the standards• The availability and effectiveness of technology, and the appropriate lead time for introduction of technology• Development of powertrain improvements to gasoline and diesel powered vehicles.• Availability and implementation of methods to reduce weight, including any impacts on safety.• Actual and projected availability of public and private charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, and fueling 

infrastructure for alternative fueled vehicles.• The impact of the standards on reduction of emissions, oil conservation, energy security, and fuel savings byThe impact of the standards on reduction of emissions, oil conservation, energy security, and fuel savings by 

consumers• The impact of the standards on the automobile industry• Impacts on employment, including the auto sector.• Costs, availability, and consumer acceptance of technologies to ensure compliance with the standards, such as vehicle 

batteries and power electronics, mass reduction, and anticipated trends in these costs.• Payback periods for any incremental vehicle costs associated with meeting the standards.• Costs for gasoline, diesel fuel, and alternative fuels.Costs for gasoline, diesel fuel, and alternative fuels.• Total light‐duty vehicle sales and projected fleet mix.• Market penetration across the fleet of fuel efficient technologies.• Any other factors that may be deemed relevant to the review.

21

Appendixpp

22

CO2 Target Curves for Passenger Car

23

CO2 Target Curves for Light Trucks

24