This document discusses key issues for the second phase of the EPA/NHTSA rule on heavy-duty truck fuel economy. It summarizes discussions from the HD Truck Fuel Economy Task Group on developing recommendations for regulators. Some of the main topics discussed include focusing the phase 2 rule more on vocational trucks, identifying advanced technologies that could be required like hybrids and electric vehicles, refining test procedures and duty cycles to better recognize new technologies, and balancing stringency and flexibility in setting new standards. The task group reached consensus that a limited set of representative duty cycles are needed for testing while still allowing new technologies to demonstrate benefits across different applications.

1. HD Truck Fuel Economy Task Group
Key Issues for Phase 2 of EPA/NHTSA Rule
Bill Van Amburg, CALSTART
Leadership Circle
Auburn Hills, MI
June 5, 2013

2. HD Truck Fuel Economy Task Group
Goals:
» In advance of rule development, discuss key issues
for industry and users
» Make sure beneficial fuel saving technology
included in rule design
» Seek areas of agreement; identify key areas of
concern
» Work collaboratively to develop recommendations
» Provide feedback to regulators
2

3. HDV FE Phase 2 Aims at Vocational
» Slow ramp up of rule left a lot of achievable
reductions off the table, especially in
vocational trucks
» Unintended outcome of possibly slowing
deployment of more advanced technology
» Second phase of rule will be aimed at
vocational vehicles

4. Phase 1 Rule Flexibility Helps – But
May Not be Needed by OEMs
» Rule so far
being easily
met, many
OEs pre-
certifying
vehicles
» May not need
credits until
perhaps 2017

5. Phase 2 Commitments in Phase 1 Rule
» Focus on energy security and environmental goals
» Preserve industry’s ability to meet market needs with a diverse range of
vehicles
» Continue our collaborative outreach with stakeholders
» Set more stringent standards based on forcing advanced technologies such as
waste heat recovery, hybrids, EVs
» Consider a range of test procedure and protocol approaches:
» Chassis dynamometer testing for certification or model validation?
» Is there a need to continue using separate engine standards?
» Do we make our vehicle simulation compliance tool more sophisticated?
» Consider bringing forward the “WP.29” Global Technical Regulation, including
a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle
» Consider expanding credit trading across the heavy-duty sector
5
DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE

6. Potential Approach for Phase 2
» Build on successes of Phase 1
» Maintain single national program regulatory structure
» Continue stakeholder outreach, EPA focus on GHGs
» Recognize that this is a highly technical rule
» Phase 1 got existing technologies off the shelf and on to new vehicles
» Phase 2 should consider forcing new and advanced cost-effective technologies
» Identify the new technologies that should be fully recognized
» Waste-heat recovery, hybrids, full electric vehicles, advanced transmissions, intelligent vehicle controls,
and heat rejection management, others?
» Refine our test procedures and vehicle simulation model for certification
» To equitably recognize these new technologies; as integrated into a complete vehicle
» Conduct baseline and advanced technology testing
» To validate test procedures and model refinements
» To assess emissions reductions
» Assess technology costs and benefits
» Consider options for stringencies and timing, including “phase-ins”
» Consider updating flexibilities
» To ensure a smooth transition to Phase 2, promote innovation, and achieve lowest costs
6
DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE

7. Some Emerging Questions for
Phase 2
» We are in the very early stages of assessing these
» This is NOT a comprehensive list:
» Should we continue with separate engine standards in Phase 2?
» Should trailers be included in Phase 2 in some way?
» Should we create more vocational vehicle categories and duty cycles?
» Should we consider vehicle labeling or other consumer information
approaches?
» Should we consider incentives for alternative fuels/CNG?
7
DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE

8. Are There Opportunities to Greatly Improve Fuel
Economy Beyond Phase 1?
» 84% say room for big improvement
» 69% want more stringent fuel economy regs
Greatest Opportunities
» Class 2b: 40% say you
could get 20% or more FE
gain
» Vocational: more than
half think you can get at
least 15% improvement
» Many called out
advanced hybrid /
electrification as an
opportunity
FuelEconomyImprovement(Avg.)
5%10%15%
8

9. Key Issues for Phase 2 Rule:
Duty Cycles, Testing Protocols, Full Vehicle Testing
are Top Issues
LessImportantMoreImportant
9

10. Duty Cycles Matter for Measuring and
Testing Truck Efficiency!
» 46% of respondents said duty cycles are “critical/must have”
» 87% said they were “very important” or “critical/must have”
» 89% say tech would benefit from representative duty cycle
Most respondents say need more duty cycles – though
recognize difficulties
» 2/3 liked 5 duty cycle “straw man”
» Some wanted fewer – maybe 3 representative duty cycles
» Many said “no two fleets are the same” and too difficult /
costly to try to “pigeonhole” fleets

11. Consensus Points in Task Group
Activities to Date
» Support Limited Vocational truck segmentation
based on how vehicles broadly used (CalHEAT
example)
» Support compiling and recommending limited
number (3-6) of Duty Cycles that are sufficient to
cover the basic applications while allowing new
technology to demonstrate its worth
» Believe there are some duty cycles so custom
they must be included – Possibly extreme cycles,
such as refuse variations

12. Consensus to Date
» 3-4 Vocational segments based on CalHEAT
findings are acceptable and outline way trucks
generally used
» Duty cycles are critical to successful Phase 2
» However: want to recommend fewest number of
meaningful “cycles” that “bound’ how a truck
generally used (cannot specifically match how
EVERY truck is specifically used) – 80% solution
» Accepted by industry and fleets as adequate

13. 6 Truck Categories – Based on How Trucks Operate
• Younger Trucks; High Annual VMT
• Mostly higher average speed, highway driving
• Between cities; Drayage; Day Cabs
• Includes second use trucks; trucks w/ smaller engines
Over the Road
Short Haul/
Regional
• Cargo, freight, delivery, collection
• Lower VMT; Lower Average speed; Stop-start
Urban
• Cargo, freight, delivery, collection
• Higher VMT; Higher Avg speed; Both urban/ highway
Rural/
Intracity
• Utility trucks, construction, etc.
• Lots of idle time; Lots of PTO use
Work site
support
∙ Commercial use; Automotive OEMs & volumes
Pickups/
Vans
Class 2B/3
Class 3-8 Vocational Work Trucks
Class 7/8 Tractors
13

14. » Final draft will be
presented at June
25 CEC Workshop
» Available for
reference
» Additional in-
depth briefings
can be set
Roadmap Report

15. Task Group: Possible Approach for
Certification
» Combine limited set of appropriate duty cycles
into ONE test cycle – perform only one test (or
simulation)
» OEM would use for certification just the
results on the duty cycle of intended use
» Other data could be used to inform
fleets/users what to expect if used in different
cycles

16. Key Issues
» Compile and recommend 3-6 specific Duty
Cycles that are sufficient to cover the basic
applications while allowing new technology to
demonstrate its worth
» Tech such as transmissions, aero, light weighting,
hybrid, thermal recovery, work site idling
» Are there some duty cycles so custom they
must be included?

17. Existing Duty Cycles!
» Many cycles for trucks and buses
» None are perfect – but are there a few that
“bound” the way most trucks are used?
17

18. Possible Consolidation
» Highway line haul – ARB HHDDT; NESCAUM
» Regional haul – modified ARB HHDDT; HTUF Class 8b
Regional
» Intermodal Class 8 Drayage Truck – Univ. of Texas/Port of
Houston; TIAX/POLA/POLB
» Pick Up and Delivery – HTUF Class 4 and HTUF Class 6
Parcel Delivery; CILCC
» Beverage - CILCC variant?
» Neighborhood Refuse Truck – NREL/Ohio State
University/Oshkosh
» Utility Service Truck – CILCC with work-site operation
» Refrigeration - Handled within the Utility segment due to
combination of driving cycle and work-site cycle
» Shuttle Bus – (Airport, Rental, Municipal) – truck cycle or
bus cycle?
» Transit Bus – Manhattan; Orange County: CBD
18

19. Task Group - Current Discussion:
Possible Duty Cycles (not final)
» Urban/suburban driving
» CILCC; Pick-up and Delivery (PDDS); transit cycles
» Issues: # stops; extreme cycles (aggregate refuse cycle)
» Intracity/Rural driving
» CILCC with high speed component?; regional class
8 variant; UDDS
» Work site support cycles
» CILCC for driving; utility work cycle or variant for
idle component

20. Discussion Notes 1/24
» Refuse needs to be included somehow as it is an
unusual application. May need to look at one cycle
with 100-200 stops, and another with 300-500 and
another with up to 1500 for extreme circumstances.
» Also for refuse, need to look at ways to capture
compaction cycle or auxiliary load, or you are doing a
disservice to these vocations. For hydraulic hybrids,
length of stops could be a factor as well.
» Auxiliary load needs to be included in test and maybe
duty cycles should have definitions of whether
auxiliaries are on or off for the cycle.
» QUESTION – Which auxiliaries need to be captured?

21. » A wide range of advanced, high-
efficiency truck technology can be
moved to cost-payback market
entry points by 2020
» Such outcomes will require strong
and consistent development,
validation and early market
support programs
» To drive full value from the suite of
available technologies requires a
more nuanced – but still limited
and discrete – testing and
certification process for Phase 2
Summary

22. CALSTART
Clean Transportation Technologies
and Solutions