International experience with GHG and FE standards

1,229 views
1,149 views

Published on

Summary of experience in North America, Europe, and Japan with setting standards for vehicle fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,229
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
176
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

International experience with GHG and FE standards

  1. 1. International experience with greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards Drew Kodjak, Executive Director March 8, 2010 Mexico City, Mexico
  2. 2. The International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) The mission of the ICCT is to dramatically improve the environmental performance and efficiency of cars, trucks, buses, and transportation systems in order to protect and improve public health, the environment, and quality of life. Slide 2
  3. 3. A Brief History   1973 - Middle East Oil Embargo   1975 - US Congress passes fuel economy CAFE standards   1997 - Global Climate Summit - Kyoto Protocol   1998 - European voluntary agreement to auto maker associations on CO2 standards for passenger vehicles   1999 - Japan sets modest fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles   2004 - California sets GHG standards for passenger vehicles.   2004 - China adopts fuel economy standards   2006 - Japan revises FE standards for passenger vehicles and sets standards for commercial trucks   2009 - Europe sets mandatory CO2 standards   2009 - US proposes combined GHG / FE standards   2010 - Mexico hosts global climate change negotiations
  4. 4. United States World’s First Fuel Economy Standards
  5. 5. US CAFE - Key Statistics   According to the National Academy of Sciences 2002 CAFE study from 1975 to 2000: –  2.8 MBD reduction in US oil consumption, 1/3 less oil use from passenger cars and light trucks, 14% reduction in US oil consumption. –  100 million metric tons reduction in CO2, or 7% reduction in total US CO2 emissions.   Several public opinion polls in 2005 - 2006 found very strong support for increasing fuel economy standards. –  Depending on the poll, between 77 - 86% supported government policies to improve fuel economy. –  Public support was consistent across political parties and when increased vehicle price was included in the question.
  6. 6. Fuel Economy Policy: CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards and actual automobile fuel economy in the U.S., 1975-2005 30 28 26 Cars Fuel economy (mpg) 24 22 20 Light trucks 18 Actual Passenger cars 16 CAFE Passenger cars Actual Light trucks 14 CAFE Light trucks 12 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Model year 6
  7. 7. Fuel Economy Policy: Sales Shift in CAFE Categories Sales of automobiles for vehicle class: 1980-2008   Light trucks sales are increasing – except for when fuel prices are rising Car sales Light truck sales 7
  8. 8. Fuel Economy Policy: Trade-Offs Trade-offs for vehicle attributes: Efficiency, fuel economy, vehicle weight, and acceleration CAFE is initially Without new CAFE changes, vehicle more demanding improvements go toward size and performance 35 44 Vehicle efficiency Fuel economy (mpg) 30 Vehicle efficiency (ton-mpg) 25 35 Fuel economy 20 15 26 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Model year 8
  9. 9. Fuel Economy Policy: Trade-Offs Trade-offs for vehicle attributes: Efficiency, fuel economy, vehicle weight, and acceleration CAFE is initially Without new CAFE changes, vehicle more demanding improvements go toward size and performance 4500 15 0-60 mph acceleration time (s) 4250 14 0-60 mph acceleration Vehicle weight (lb) 4000 13 3750 12 3500 11 Vehicle weight 3250 10 3000 9 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Model year 9
  10. 10. U.S. FE/GHG Rulemaking: Cars New federal U.S. standards for GHG emissions and fuel economy (approx)  Different MY2016 target setting for Cars (~39 mpg, ~228 g CO2e/mi)  Footprint-based GHG/FE slopes will give different standards for different automakers 10
  11. 11. Performance by Vehicle Make and Model 500 30 highest selling light truck models Dodge Ram 30 highest selling pas senger car models Ford F-Series e/mile) 450 M odels achieving overall M Y2016 target (35.5 mpg) Chevy Silverado Honda Odys sey 2 400 Dodge Charger GHG emission rate (g CO 339 g CO 2e/mile Toyota Highlander 350 Chevy Impala Honda CR-V 300 Nis san A ltima Honda A ccord 250 g CO 2 e/mile Toyota Camry 250 Ford Focus Honda Civic 26.2 mpg Toyota Corolla 200 Toyota Yaris Ford Es cape Hybrid Toyota Camry Hybrid 35.5 mpg 150 Smart Fortwo Honda Civic Hybrid Sales-weighted average Toyota Prius M Y2008 light-duty vehicles 100 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Rated fuel economy (miles/gallon) •  Pay attention to best selling models •  Size and weight largely determine performance •  Hybrids are an important technology
  12. 12. Europe World’s First CO2 standards
  13. 13. European Integrated Approach   Overall objective to reduce GHG emissions by 20 / 30% by 2020 from 1990 levels.   Transportation is Europe’s second largest sector.   Integrated Approach –  Vehicle standards –  Consumer information (labeling) –  Fiscal measures   CO2 regulatory design should be “competitively neutral” and maintain ability of car market to “cater to different consumer needs.” (Regulation EC 443/2009).   130 g/km standard + 10 g/km complimentary measures (technologies and biofuels) by 2015   Eco-innovation to promote measures outside of test procedure.   Target - 95 g/km by 2020 with technology review in 2013.
  14. 14. European LDV Fleet g/CO2 by Manufacturer 300 Porsche 2006 trendline t average mass 250 Subaru average CO2 [g/km] Mitsubishi BMW Mazda GM Daimler 200 Nissan Chrysler Suzuki Toyota 160 Volkswagen 150 Hyundai Fiat Ford PSA Renault Honda 100 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 average mass [kg]
  15. 15. Determining the limit value curve 400   Starting point: 2006 trend Option 2 slope 120% line Option 2 slope 100% 350   Scale the curve to achieve Option 2 slope 80% 130g/km average in 2012 Option 2 slope 60% CO2 emission limit value [g/km]   Option 1 sets a uniform 300 Option 2 slope 40% target (0% curve) Option 2 slope 20% 21%   Slope of the limit value 250 Option 1 curve is maintained at 2006 trend line 60%. 200   Slope is a distribution parameter, not primarily 21% 150 an environmental parameter. 100 50 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 weight [kg] (AWI assumption 0,82% p.a.)
  16. 16. 2020 “Target” of 95 g/km CO2 from cars: EU reduction 200 20 7 years 180 18 Improvement rate [g/km per year] 160 16 Average emissions [g/km] 140 14 120 12 100 10 80 8 60 6 40 4 20 2 0 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
  17. 17. Japan Top Runner Program to Improve Fuel Economy Of Passenger Vehicles and Commercial Trucks
  18. 18. Japan Top Runner Standards   Kyoto Protocol obligation 6% below 1990 levels.   Transportation is 20% of CO2 emissions   First standards set in 1999 with modest standards for 2010.   In 2004, 80% of petrol vehicles met the 2010 standards, in part due to supportive green tax policies.   In 2005, new standards for 2015 were developed along with important regulatory changes. –  Fuel Neutral: separate standards for petrol and diesel vehicles were combined into one standard. –  Credit trading across all bins: 1999 regulation did not allow trading across compliance bins, and thus did not promote overachievement. –  New test procedure to reflect real world conditions.
  19. 19. Methodology for Top Runner Fuel Efficiency Standard (Example for one weight class ) Average Top Standard level value Sales Volume in Japanese Market Improvement Standard value is toward the top decided by two-step level Technology approach. Improvement In the future Present Target year for standard value Fuel efficiency (km/L) 13
  20. 20. Penetration Rates of Efficiency Technologies To Meet the 2010 Standards Variable valve timing Estimated in 1998 Estimated in 1998 Source JAMA
  21. 21. Average Fuel Efficiency 2015 Targets for Vehicles Passenger Target : cars 2004 Performance : Improvement rate 23.5% Commercial Target : Vehicles 2004 Performance : Improvement rate 12.6% (GVW 3.5t) Buses Target : (11passengers 2004 Performance : 8.3km/ℓ Improvement rate 7.2% & GVW 2.5t) Calculated on the basis of weighted average values of fuel economy performance for the respective vehicle weight categories, assuming the same respective shipment volume ratios for 2015 as those recorded in 2004. Source METI, MLIT 12
  22. 22. Global Perspective and Lessons Learned
  23. 23. Slide 23
  24. 24. Differences in US, EU and Japan Fleets Attribute Japan Europe U.S. Vehicle weight (kg) 1245 1334 1875 Engine size (L) 1.5 1.7 3.3 Vehicle size (m2) - - 4.5 Fuel economy (km/L) 17.3 17.2 11.1 24
  25. 25. Technology Differences: U.S. and Mexico   U.S and Mexico fleets are similar in size and fuel economy –  But, for 2008 vehicles, there are several notable technology differences… Technology/variable Mexico United States Fuel economy (km/L) 11.8 11.1 Vehicle footprint size (m2) 4.0 4.5 Engine size (cylinders / displacement) 4.6 / 2.4L 5.6 / 3.3L Specific power (kW/L) 49.1 50.0 Percent 4 valves/cylinder 68% 74% Engine Variable valve timing/lift 20% 53% Cylinder deactivation 0.3% 6% Direct injection gasoline 0.3% 4% Auto/manual 57%/43% 95%/5% Transmission 6+ gears 9% 21% Continuously variable (CVT) 2% 8% Percent hybrids 0.03% 2.2% Percent diesels 3% 0.1% 25
  26. 26. Lessons for US, EU, and China Programs   Fuel economy standards can be extremely effective at reducing oil use and GHG emissions.   Competitiveness is an important consideration, and attribute-based standards help with competitiveness concerns.   Voluntary standards have a poor track record.   Fuel economy or CO2 standards will favor diesel vehicles to the detriment of public health if diesels are not held to the same emission standards as petrol vehicles.   Setting separate standards for car and more lenient standards for trucks can lead to market distortions and gaming.   Long-term targets signal corporate investment in technologies and changes to fleet mix. Slide 26
  27. 27. Drew Kodjak International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) 1225 Eye St. NW Suite 900 Washington D.C. 20005 drew@theicct.org Slide 27

×