advanced clean cars (acc) workshop september 2020 [updated]

97
Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop May 6, 2021

Upload: others

Post on 13-Feb-2022

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II WorkshopMay 6 2021

bull Workshop is being recordedbull Slides and other downloads are available

in the handouts section of your GoToWebinar control pane

bull All handouts and recording will also be posted httpsww2arbcagovadvanced-clean-cars-ii-meetings-workshopsbull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on

website postings

Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics

2

bull Break for questions after each of the five sections

bull All attendees will remain mutedbull Questions can be sent via the GoToWebinar

question boxbull Please include slide numbers in your

questionbull Written comments and additional questions

may be submitted after today to cleancarsarbcagov

Workshop Questions

3

Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles

4

2017 Statewide GHG EmissionsTotal = 424 MMTCO2e

Light-Duty

28

Medium-Duty2

Heavy-Duty7

Off-Road Mobile4

Other Sectors59

2017 Statewide NOx EmissionsTotal = 1294 tons per day

Light-Duty13 Medium-Duty

6

Heavy-Duty26Off-Road

Mobile35

Other Sectors20

5

All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs

bull PHEVs BEVs and FCEVs have less smog-forming and GHG well-to-wheel emissions

2020 Mobile Source Strategyhttpsww2arbcagovsitesdefaultfiles2021-04Revised_Draft_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategypdf

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Workshop is being recordedbull Slides and other downloads are available

in the handouts section of your GoToWebinar control pane

bull All handouts and recording will also be posted httpsww2arbcagovadvanced-clean-cars-ii-meetings-workshopsbull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on

website postings

Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics

2

bull Break for questions after each of the five sections

bull All attendees will remain mutedbull Questions can be sent via the GoToWebinar

question boxbull Please include slide numbers in your

questionbull Written comments and additional questions

may be submitted after today to cleancarsarbcagov

Workshop Questions

3

Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles

4

2017 Statewide GHG EmissionsTotal = 424 MMTCO2e

Light-Duty

28

Medium-Duty2

Heavy-Duty7

Off-Road Mobile4

Other Sectors59

2017 Statewide NOx EmissionsTotal = 1294 tons per day

Light-Duty13 Medium-Duty

6

Heavy-Duty26Off-Road

Mobile35

Other Sectors20

5

All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs

bull PHEVs BEVs and FCEVs have less smog-forming and GHG well-to-wheel emissions

2020 Mobile Source Strategyhttpsww2arbcagovsitesdefaultfiles2021-04Revised_Draft_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategypdf

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Break for questions after each of the five sections

bull All attendees will remain mutedbull Questions can be sent via the GoToWebinar

question boxbull Please include slide numbers in your

questionbull Written comments and additional questions

may be submitted after today to cleancarsarbcagov

Workshop Questions

3

Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles

4

2017 Statewide GHG EmissionsTotal = 424 MMTCO2e

Light-Duty

28

Medium-Duty2

Heavy-Duty7

Off-Road Mobile4

Other Sectors59

2017 Statewide NOx EmissionsTotal = 1294 tons per day

Light-Duty13 Medium-Duty

6

Heavy-Duty26Off-Road

Mobile35

Other Sectors20

5

All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs

bull PHEVs BEVs and FCEVs have less smog-forming and GHG well-to-wheel emissions

2020 Mobile Source Strategyhttpsww2arbcagovsitesdefaultfiles2021-04Revised_Draft_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategypdf

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles

4

2017 Statewide GHG EmissionsTotal = 424 MMTCO2e

Light-Duty

28

Medium-Duty2

Heavy-Duty7

Off-Road Mobile4

Other Sectors59

2017 Statewide NOx EmissionsTotal = 1294 tons per day

Light-Duty13 Medium-Duty

6

Heavy-Duty26Off-Road

Mobile35

Other Sectors20

5

All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs

bull PHEVs BEVs and FCEVs have less smog-forming and GHG well-to-wheel emissions

2020 Mobile Source Strategyhttpsww2arbcagovsitesdefaultfiles2021-04Revised_Draft_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategypdf

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

5

All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs

bull PHEVs BEVs and FCEVs have less smog-forming and GHG well-to-wheel emissions

2020 Mobile Source Strategyhttpsww2arbcagovsitesdefaultfiles2021-04Revised_Draft_2020_Mobile_Source_Strategypdf

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

6

Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

1 LEV Criteria Updates2 ZEV Regulation Proposal

--- BREAK ---

3 ZEV Technology Cost Update4 ZEV Assurance Measure Updates5 Battery Labeling Proposal6 Next Steps

Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda

7

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

LEV Criteria Emission Proposals

8

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Overview of UpdatesTodayrsquos Workshop1 NMOG+NOx fleet average2 SFTP emission standards3 Intermediate soak cold-start emissions4 Quick-drive away emissions 5 PHEV high power cold-start emissions6 Evaporative emission standards7 Robust emission control for heavier vehicles

Future Workshop US06 PM emission control

9

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop

10

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg001

002

003

004

005

012

000

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

Scenario to avoidNon-ZEV fleet gets dirtier

as ZEV sales increase

Current ACC ProgramAnnual Reduction

~ 0007 gmile

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average

11

2025 203020202015Model year

Flee

t A

vera

ge

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

Includes ZEVs

Non-ZEV Fleet Avg

001

002

003

004

005

012

000

Make slight adjustment for 1-2 years to take out ZEVs

0030 gmilewith ZEVs

0030 gmileNon-ZEV Fleet Avg

2025 Non-ZEV Fleetgt0030 gmile

Then hold non-ZEVs to constant average-Provides more certainty for non-ZEV fleet

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

RemoveLEV160

12

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20002

004

006

008

010

012

000

014

016

018

SULEV30

ULEV50

ULEV70

ULEV125

LEV160

Current BinsPhase outULEV125

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins

13

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV20

001

002

003

004

005

006

000

007

008

009

SULEV30

ULEV50

Add lower emission bins Need to coordinate changes with EPA

ULEV40

SULEV10

ULEV70

ULEV60

Proposed Bins

Existing Bins

SULEV15

SULEV25

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

14

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxCurrent method used by most OEMs Weighted average of three cycles

SC03 CycleUrban with

Air-Con

FTP Cycle Urban Driving

Composite Standard

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

002

004

006

008

010

012

000US06 CycleAggressive

Driving

US06

SC03

FTP

Current composite standard allows for poor calibration for aggressive driving

Currentstand-alone

standards

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

000

001

002

003

004

005

006

007

008

009

BMW X3 Honda Civic Mazda 3 BMW 430i HondaAccord

VW Passat Ford Fusion Lexus GS350 ChevyEquinox

Honda CR-V

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

SULEV30

ULEV70

15

2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal

Proposal Require certification to new stand-alone US06 NMOG+NOx standard US06 standard set to identical numerical value as FTP standard

Proposed Standard

Test-to-test variations

Proposed Standard2017-2020 Model Year Vehicles

Emission values represent full useful life

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time

16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5-10 min 20 min - 5 hour 6+ hour

Occ

urre

nce

[]

Vehicle Soak Time

More than 40 of real-world vehicle starts follow intermediate soaks

0 100 200 300 400

10

Vehicle Soak Time (min)

NO

x +

HC

Em

issi

ons

Rat

io

Overnight Cold Soak

10 Minute Warm Soak

Typical OEM Calibration

Excess Emissions

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

17

3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal

SULEV30Standard

Excess Emissions

CARB tested new 2020 model year vehicles with new calibration

All showed improved performance but some were better than others

ACC II Proposal Do not exceed overnight soak

emissions for soaks greater than 3 hours

Require emission linearity between 10 min soak and 3 hour soak Cost-effective emission

reductions can be gained

Data points include test variability and durability factor adjustments

0

001

002

003

004

005

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360

NM

OG

+N

Ox

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

Soak Duration [minutes]

LEV2 SULEV30

2020 Toyota

2020 BMW

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away

Real-World Data CARB analyzed recent data from UC Davis

Household Contract Large portion (61) of in-use trips had

quicker drive-away than FTP lab test cycle Median time was 14 sec

Confidential data analysis shared by OEMs indicated Median idle was 16-23 sec 25th percentile was 8-10 sec

Separately analyzing aggressiveness of initial drive-away

18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Port

ion

of T

rips

[]

Initial Idle [s]

FTP TestMedian14 sec

5 sec or less24

47521 Total Trips

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing

ACCII Proposal Status Continue to evaluate in-use driving and emission data Data analysis will help determine whether new standard or

guidance language will provide more robust emission control 19

000

002

004

006

008

010

012

Dart Elantra Altima Mazda3 430i Camry 20 X3 MB C300 Fusion Tahoe Camry Wrangler

NM

OG

+N

Ox

[gm

ile]

5 sec Idle 20 sec Idle

3 Bag Weighted EmissionsEmission values represent full useful life

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

00

10

20

30

40

50

60

Ford Toyota Audi Honda Mitsubishi Volvo Chrysler

Em

issi

ons

Rel

ativ

e to

Sta

ndar

d

Certification Cycle High Power Cold Start Cycles

5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts

20

Car PHEVsTrending to stronger electric powertrains so can complete many high power cycles without using ICE

2013 CarPHEV

2017-2018 Car PHEVs 2018-2019 SUV PHEVs

SUVMinivan PHEVsHigh cold-start emissions observed on nearly all high power cycles

No engine start at all

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

000

005

010

015

020

025

030

035

040

Honda Mitsubishi Volvo FCA Ford Prius PHEV Hyundai Prius Prime

Co

ld U

S06

Em

issi

ons

[gm

ile]

21

5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts

ACC II cold-start US06 proposal

ACC II Proposal Develop cold-start US06 standard based on best performers US06 all electric capable PHEVs are exempt

Test Vehicles2017-2019 Model Year

SULEV30 PHEVs

NMOG+NOx EmissionsCold-Start Bag

Non-Default Mode

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard

bull Last workshop Change standard from 005 to 0010 gmilebull Most vehicles meeting this now but some higher emittingbull Eliminate dirtiest ensure good designs remain the norm

bull New proposal 001 gmilebull Rounding gives some flexibility

but nominally still designed as clean

Running loss emissions are the evaporative emissions which occur when the vehicle is driven primarily due to fuel vapors escaping the fuel system

22

Proposed Standard

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Unique to special sealed NIRCOS gasoline tanks common on PHEVs (and some HEVs)bull ~6 of total vehicles in CA fleet and growing

bull Specific sequence of driving on hot day + refueling can overwhelm canister and create a lsquopuffrsquo of HC emissionsbull Vent tank vapor to canister to allow refueling then push

more vapor through during refueling

23

6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions

NIRCOS Non-Integrated Refueling Canister Only System

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Problem Current test procedures donrsquot capture this worst case eventbull Allows undersized canisters that let vapors breakthrough during

refuelingbull ~80-90 vehicles with NIRCOS tanks have large enough canister

bull Proposal Specify minimum canister size in regulationbull OEMs would demonstrate compliance using CARB-defined evap

modelcalculation with vehicle specific parametersbull High confidence puff emissions will be accounted for without adding

test burden

24

6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background

lt 85k lbsPCLDT

Class 3 10k-14k lbsGasoline (26)Diesel (65)

Class 2b 85k-10k lbsGasoline (54)

Diesel (36)

LDV Chassis CertificationHD Engine Certification

Percentages based on MY 2026 from EMFAC 2021

Light Duty Vehicles Medium Duty Vehicles Heavy Duty

Engines

gt14k lbs

25

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Last Workshop bull We were exploring the

effects of higher loads (full payload) and towing on emissions

bull Evaluate a lsquoHD-likersquo in-use standard for this categorybull 3 Bin Moving Average

Window (MAW) method using PEMS

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Per

cent

Max

Tor

que

[]

Percent Max Engine Speed []

HD Engine Test Cycle LDVMDV Chassis Test Cycle

PEMS Portable Emission Monitoring System used to measure tailpipe emissions while driving on-road

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Per

cent

Max

To

rque

[]

Engine Speed

Half Payload Chassis FTP

Full Payload Chassis FTP

Half Payload Chassis US06

Full Payload Chassis US06

Half Payload Oxnard - PEMS

78 GCWR Payload Oxnard Towing PEMS

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

28

000010020030040050060070080090100

2019 GM Silverado K2500ULEV250

Diesel34k miles

NM

HC

+N

ox

(gm

ile)

FTP Dyno Emissions

Half Payload Full Payload

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

100

2019 GM Silverado K250034k miles

DieselN

MH

C+

No

x(g

mile

)

On-Road Emissions

DTLA Mt Baldy Oxnard Oxnard towing

No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads

on Dyno

Emissions On-Road Are Higher Than

Dyno

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Conclusions from Testingbull Full Payload during chassis dyno testing does not lead to increased

emissionsbull PEMS on-road testing is showing that emissions increase on-road and it

increases even more with towingbull Furthermore chassis dyno testing can not cover the full range of engine

operation that occurs on-road

Updated Proposalbull Align all MDVs same in-use testing procedures and standards from HD

Omnibus Rulemaking for both engine and chassis certified products

7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs

29

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

30

7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs

Idle bin Low Load bin

MedHighLoad Bin

Otto bin

Diesel le6 Engine Load

gt6 and le 20 Engine Load

gt 20 Engine Load

Gasoline 0-100 Engine Load

bull Data is collected on-road with a PEMS

bull Data is analyzed using continuous 5 minute overlapping windows for the entire test

bull Each window is binned by average engine load

bull Emissions for each bin is calculated using the equations in the HD regulation

bull Each bin is compared to the standard specific to that bin in the HD regulation

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

DTLAMt BaldyOxnardOxnard towing

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

070

080

090

2019Silverado

K2500Diesel

2019Cummins

2500Diesel

2020SprinterDiesel

2018Cummins

2500Diesel

2020 FordF350Diesel

NO

x g

hp

-hr

Reaches 13 ghp-hr

7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards

bull All diesel chassis certified MDVs we tested could meet the idle bin standard for 2030bull We are still evaluating the Otto bin for gasoline MDVs

HD 2024 Std

HD 2030 StdHD 2024 Std

HD 2030 Std

ldquoLowrdquo load operation Bin

ldquoMedHighrdquo load operation Bin

31

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

32

8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle

bull Currently MDVs must certify to a composite supplementalFTP standard similar to LD vehiclesbull Like LD vehicles good emission control during the US06 cycle is not

guaranteed with this approachbull Now have tested several current model year MDVs on the

US06 cycle

bull Proposal Adopt new stand alone US06 standard for MDVs toensure robust control under broader conditions

US06 For Class 2b MDVs the aggressive high speed US06 test cycle is used For heavierslower-accelerating Class 3 MDVs the Unified test cycle is used

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards

000

020

040

060

080

100

2019 FordTransit 350

Gasoline8k miles

2019 GMSilverado K2500

Diesel34k miles

2019 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel10k miles

2018 CumminsRAM 2500

Diesel13k miles

2017 CumminsTitanDiesel

215k miles

2020 Ford F350Diesel

7k miles

2020 SprinterDiesel

155k miles

2019 RAM 1500PromasterGasoline

55k miles

gm

ile

US06 - Class 2b

000

010

020

030

040

050

060

2019 Cummins RAM 3500Diesel

37k miles

2019 Ford F350Gasoline30k miles

gm

ile

Hot 1435 UC - Class 3

Emissions 003

Newer MDVs can readily meet lower stand-alone SFTPstandards even before considering future aftertreatment changes like HD Omnibus is expected to require

Emissions 003

Existing Composite Standard

Proposed stand alone standard

fully aged after treatment system or DF applied

Proposed stand alone standard

Existing Composite Standard

33

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Soliciting feedback on the proposed In-use emissions calculations and standards

bull Continue to test more vehicles to propose new SFTP standardsbull Finish PEMS on-road testingbull Develop MDV regulation languagebull Assess environmental justice impacts

34

MDV Proposal Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

35

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal

36

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

-

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

500000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 2023 2024 2025

Reg

ulat

ion

Cre

dit

s

California ZEV Requirement Vs Actual (Credits)

CA TZEV Requirement CA ZEV Requirement

Actual TZEV Credits Produced Actual TZEV + ZEV Credits Produced

Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation

37

Cumulative Sales (Through MY2019)

FCEV 8500

BEV 371200

PHEVs 245000

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

38

ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

MY 2020 MY 2021 MY 2022 MY 2023 MY 2024 MY 2025

2021-2025 Model Year (MY) ZEV and PHEV OEM Reported Values

Industrywide PHEV Industrywide ZEV Total ZEV + PHEV

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull EV owner base is solid and growingbull Most EV owners are intent on repurchasing (JD Power)

bull ~70 of CA car buyers may consider EVs in the future still concerns among skeptics remainbull ~25 surveyed are actively considering EVs for their next purchase

(UCD)

bull Other studies focused on US show 30-44 may consider future EV purchase

bull Educationexperience translates to EV interest

39

A market continues to emerge

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

40

Automakers are going Electric

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

41

Electrification Commitments Worldwide

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Federal (US) commitment to cut GHG emissions 50 by 2030

bull EPA directed to revisit greenhouse gas rulesbull US rejoins Paris Climate Agreementbull Proposed $174 billion to promote electric vehicles and

EV charging stations

42

Federal Support Growing

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

2634

4351

60

7682

8894

100

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

N

ew Z

EV

and

PH

EV

Sal

es

43

Starting Stringency Real Vehicles

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

44

Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

New ZEV Market Shares Over TimeASAP Slow Phase Delayed Fuel Cell Deployment Proposed ZEV Requirement

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Treatment of ZEVs bull Treatment of PHEVsbull Historical Credits

45

Regulatory Considerations

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Credits are still the currency of the regulationbull Increase assurance around vehicle numbers to achieve

ultimate goalbull Proposal

bull One ZEV credit per ZEV (BEV or FCEV)bull 5 year credit life

bull Example 2026 model year ZEV could satisfy obligation through 2030 model year

46

New ZEV Treatment

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Midterm Review findingsbull Electric miles traveled is highly consumer dependentbull Real world emission can be higher than shown on test cycles

bull Increased consumer choice and model diversity remains important when achieving 100

bull PHEVs may remain an important choice among lower income consumers

bull PHEVs have been preferred over BEVs in CARBrsquos Clean Cars 4 All program

bull New controls proposed earlier will ensure benefits

47

The Role of Plug-in Hybrids

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull 50 miles all-electric range (label)bull US06 all electric capable throughout charge depleting

modebull Existing qualifications that are maintained

bull SULEV 30bull Zero evaporative emissionsbull 15150000 warranty on emission related partsbull 10150000 on traction battery

48

Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Even with higher minimum qualifications for PHEVs increased emission reduction assurance needed for light duty

bull Proposal bull 20 cap any year on number of PHEVs allowed to fulfill OEMs

obligationbull 5 year credit lifebull Continue separate tracking of PHEV credits and limit credit

usage to only the portion allowed to be met with PHEVs

49

New PHEV Treatment

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Manufacturers will continue to amass credits through 2025bull Sufficient credits already exist in the bank to satisfy industryrsquos

obligations through 2025

bull To achieve 100 historical credit usage will need to be limited

bull Proposal bull Pre-2026 credits expire after 2030 MYbull Cap on usage of historical credits of no more than 15 of each

category (ZEVs and PHEVs)

50

Historical ZEV Credits

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond

bull Divide the 2025 Model Year credit banks by the maximum credit per vehicle by technology type

51

55 mil ZEV Credits4 credits

= 1375000 converted ZEV credits

146000 PHEV Credits11 credits

= 137200 converted PHEV credits

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

PHEV Sales After Caps Historical PHEV Credits ZEV Sales (after Caps) Historical ZEV Credits

52

Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

bull Should BEVs have any minimum criteria to qualify Should minimum requirements change over time

bull How can we meaningfully ensure equitable outcomes from the ZEV regulation How can we increase accessibility to ZEV technology

bull Should PHEVs remain capped given higher minimum requirements Should the cap remain at 20 or change over time Should the minimum requirements (eg range criteria pollutant certification allowable vehicle class) change over time Are further options available to encourage high charging frequency

bull Are the caps for historical credits reasonable

53

Staff Seeking Input

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

54

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Will Resume at 1110 amWe are on a short break -

55

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

ZEV Cost Projections

56

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

ZEV Costs Overview

bull Costs Covered in the Presentationbull Technology Updates and Sourcesbull Modeling the Fleetbull Incremental Cost Example bull Consumer Preferences and Cost Projections for Additive

Technologybull Additional Data and Next Steps

57

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments

Vehicle Design

Incremental Vehicle Costs

Component Cost

BEV

PHEV

FCEV H2

Costs Covered in the Presentation

58

Technology Updatesbull Technology trend updates

bull Cheaper batteriesbull Smaller longer lasting and cheaper fuel cell stacksbull Smaller more efficient and more powerful non-battery

componentsbull Cost updates since last workshop

bull Refined non-battery costs based on additional tear-down data

bull Adjusted battery costs downward based on updated modeling with higher battery volumes and carrying forward cost reduction rate out to 2035

bull Developed BEV FCEV PHEV incremental technology costs

59

Vehicle Cost Modules

BEV

Battery Cost

Non-BatteryComponent Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

FCEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

Delete Engine Cost

ZEV Assembly Cost Reductions

PHEV

Battery Cost

Non-Battery Component Cost

60

Battery Pack Costs

61

2026 $100 2030 $81 2035 $63

$-

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1000

2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035

$kW

h

Year

BEV PHEV FCEV

Fuel Cell System Costs

62

bull Autonomie 2020 model results for vehicle attributes

bull Strategic Analysis (SA) cost models for fuel cell and hydrogen tank systems

bull SA 2020 cost models consider high-durability fuel cell systems

bull CARB method accounts for cost reductions due to technology learning and production capacity

$210

$55

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

1000 10000 100000 1000000

Fuel

Cel

l Sys

tem

Co

st ($

kW

)

Annual Production Volume

60kW 70kW 80kW 90kW 100kW

Today 2030-2035

Modeling the California Fleet

Small Car26

MedLg Car16Small SUV

35

MedLg SUV10

Pickup13

Model Year 2019 ndash California Sales

63

Technology Range (mi)

BEV 300

PremiumHigh Performance BEV 400

PHEV Car amp Small SUV (2025 2030) 50 70

PHEV Bigger SUV amp Truck (2025 2030) 50 60

FCEV 320

Modeled ranges are EPA label all-electric-range equivalent

Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example

64

$4588

$8480

$4853

PHEV50 $5414

$2592

$5717

$2545

PHEV60 $4970

$616

$2991

$629

PHEV60 $4079

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

BEV300 BEV400 FCEV320 PHEV

Incr

emen

tal C

ost

(202

1$)

Dire

ct M

anuf

actu

ring

Co

sts

2026 2030 2035

Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes

bull A single vehicle of each ZEV technology (PHEV FCEV or BEV) in each vehicle class is not representative of the market

bull Consumer preferences and accompanying technology packages have additional cost implications

65

Additive Technology Package Required for

Cold Weather BEVs in colder climates

Towing Larger BEVs with towing capability

AWD4WDBEVs FCEVs and smaller PHEVs where ICE equivalent had AWD4WD

Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs

66

Small Car

Medium amp Large Cars

SmallSUV

2WD 07AWD 05AWD+Cold 01

2WD 35

AWD 25

AWD+Cold 03

Towing 14

AWD+Tow 10AWD+Tow+Cold 01

Pickup

Medium amp Large SUVs10 Premium

Package

Base Package

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

67

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2030BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs

68

$0

$2000

$4000

$6000

$8000

$10000

$12000

BEV FCEV PHEV

Incr

emet

nal C

ost

(202

1$)

Medium and Large SUVs - 2035BaseColdAWD + ColdTowTow + AWDTow + AWD + Cold

Staff Seeking Additional Data

bull Avoided conventional powertrain costs for a BEV and FCEV (engine delete cost)

bull ZEV assembly cost reductionsbull Projections for efficiency improvements across all ZEV

platformsbull Cost accounting for ZEV assurance measures

69

Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions

bull FCEVs and BEVs having fewer moving components and are simpler to assemble

bull Both ZEV technologies do not utilize ICEs so those costs must be removed

70

ZEV Assembly CostReductions

BEVs ($-1600)

FCEVs ($-800)

ICE and Transmission Delete Cost

Cars and Small SUVs ($-5300)

Bigger SUVs and Trucks ($-7500)

bull Release ZEV cost modeling workbook for feedbackbull Refine packages and costs based on updated databull Overall costs and benefits to society and consumers as

part of total cost of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

bull Develop fleet-wide costs from proposed ZEV stringency as inputs to total costs of the proposed regulation (Future Workshop)

71

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

72

Update on ZEV Assurance Measures

73

bull Protecting Emission Reductions Assuring ZEVs can fully replace gasoline vehicles for a consumer

bull Keeping All Consumers In Mind Ensuring ZEVs meet unique needs for affordability durability and charging over the vehiclersquos life

bull Transparency Requires disclosure in battery health and warranty coverage to build consumer confidence

bull Transitioning to new technology Bringing independent repair industry into the fold

bull Simple Charging Standardizes fast charging for ease of use

The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs

74

bull Durability (or Full Useful Life) standardbull Ensures robust design of components to nominally meet standardbull Relies on In-Use Compliance Testing to evaluate

bull Warrantybull Ensures individual emission-related part failures are OEMrsquos

responsibilitybull Partnered with warranty reporting to CARB

bull Currently these regulations do not apply to ZEVs

Current Approach to Vehicle Durability

75

Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles

2020 Tesla Sustainability report Model SX Batteries retaining gt90 capacity past 150000 miles

Nissan says its Leaf batteries will outlast the car by 10-12 years looks for reuse solutionshttpselectrekco20190524nissan-leaf-batteries-outlast-car

A Wide Range of Testing Results on an Excellent Lithium-Ion Cell Chemistry to be used as Benchmarks for New Battery Technologiesldquocells of this type should be able to power an electric vehicle for over 16 million kilometers (1 million miles)rdquo - Harlow J E et al 2019 A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell chemistry to be used as benchmarks for new battery technologies J Electrochem Soc 166 A3031

76

bull US DOE reports current technology status can maintain approximately 4100 hours of operation with less than 10 loss in system output power1

bull US DOE near-term and long-term goals to enable estimated 150000 mile durability arebull Near-Term 5000 hours with less than 10 power lossbull Long-Term 8000 hours with less than 10 power loss

77

Fuel Cell Durability is Improving

1 httpswwwhydrogenenergygovpdfsreview20fc135_borup_weber_2020_opdf (slide 12)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Powertrain Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000

Year

s

Mileage

Battery and FC Warranties (sales weighted)

(Unlimited)

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Toyota Mirai Honda Clarity

Hyundai NexoHyundai Nexo

78

Current ZEV Warranty Offerings

bull Applies to 2026 and subsequent model yearsbull BEVs must be designed to maintain 80 of certified UDDS

range for 15 years150000 milesbull FCEVs must be designed to maintain at least 90 fuel cell

system output power after 4000 hours of operation

bull In development Corresponding in-use compliance testing regulations

Draft Durability Requirement

79

bull BEVs and FCEVs Defined minimum warranty for powertrain components for 3yr50k (7yr70k high-priced) excluding batteries for traction power

bull BEVs Require warranty term of 10yr150k for batteries bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM required to explicitly disclose threshold and tie it to

customer readable state of health metric bull BEVs and PHEVs OEM to determine threshold for warranty failure

bull BEVs and FCEVs Emulate warranty reporting requirement of gasoline and PHEVs

bull All existing requirements for PHEVs remain

Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements

80

bull In California there are over 10000 independent repair shopsbull Compare to less than 2000 new vehicle dealers

bull What is the purpose of Californiarsquos service information regulationsbull Requires emission-related repair information to be available for

non-dealer techniciansbull Requires tooling to be able to access on-vehicle information to be

available to non-dealer technicians

81

Service Information

bull Require same access amp disclosure for ZEVs throughout CCR 1969 California Service Information Regulation

bull For ZEVs require information disclosure for all propulsion-related components

bull Require standardized tooling to reprogram ECUs (SAE J2534)bull Require standardization for some vehicle data

bull Vehicle to tool connector (SAE J1962)bull Communication protocol of info from vehicle to tool (UDS on CAN)bull Propulsion related component fault codesbull Minimal vehicle usage data

82

Draft Service Information Proposal

bull Require OEM to calculate a State-of-Health (SOH) of batterybull Minimum accuracy (+5) tied to remaining amount of lsquoUsable

Battery Energyrsquo (as measured by SAE J1634 lab test methods)bull Readable by driver without a toolbull Normalized (100 equals new on all cars)

bull Require OEM to define and disclose SOH value that qualifies for warranty repair

Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal

83

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

84

Battery Recycling Proposal

85

bull Large scale retirements of EV batteries will begin to occur within the next 5 to 10 years (~30 GWh of early EVs in US)

bull Mineral resources are unlikely to limit battery manufacturing over the short term but recycling is critical in the long term

bull Logistics infrastructure and knowledge sharing are key barriers for end-of-life (EOL) management

bull Low-value of recovered materials could be a barrier to capitalinvestment

bull Battery reuse is a promising strategy to increase the value of batteries

86

Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse

87

Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example

httpsenwikipediaorgwikiElectric_vehicle_batteryhttpscircuitdigestcomtutoriallead-acid-battery-working-construction-and-charging-discharging

bull Lead acid batteries have a high percentage of recycled contentbull Lead battery recycling has been associated with significant and

negative environmental impacts particularly to local communities

EV batteries contain fewer hazardous substances and pose lower toxicity risks

bull Current EV Batteries rely on a short list of key materialsbull 7 of 35 elements on US Department of Critical Minerals List

88

Critical Energy Minerals

Platinum Group and Precious Metals

Rare Earth Elements

Battery Critical Energy Materials

89

Lithium hellip

Lithium (2020)

Cobalt (2010)

Cobalt (2020)

Nickel (2010)Nickel (2020)

Manganese (2010)

Manganese (2020)

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

Stat

ic D

eple

tio

n R

ate

(Yea

rs)

Geographic Concentration

Static depletion rate is the estimated global reserves divided by the annual production from that year Geographic concentration is the largest identified reserves by country divided by the estimated global reserves for the year Data from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summaries (2019)

Lots of places Few places

Increasing Rate of Exhaustion

Critical Energy Minerals

bull US could meet more than half of material demand for new batteries with recycled materials by 2040

90

Battery Recycling and Material Recovery

Dunn J Slattery M Kendall A Ambrose H amp Shen S (2021) Circularity of Lithium-Ion Battery Materials in Electric Vehicles Environmental Science amp Technology

bull Batteries need to be recycled to support continued deployment of ZEVs

bull Future ZEV batteries should increasingly rely on recycledsecondary electrode materials

bull A mixed chemistry waste stream is a barrier to promising high value recycling technologies

bull Critical information must be included with the battery system throughout the value chain to enable sorting tracking and promote responsible design

91

Problem Statement ndash Why a label

bull Enable efficient sorting

bull Improve the economic efficiency of material recovery

bull Enable reuse or second life applications including repurposing

bull Prevent improper disposal or exposure to hazards

92

Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain

Chemistry NCARated 1000 cycles 200ASpecifications 288V Composition (8 x 365V 563Ah)

OEM

Applies to Pack and Module Components

For illustrative purposes only

Requirement Standard This Proposal

Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE2936)

European Union (EU) Directive

Peoplersquos Republic of China RoHS

Manufacturer Chemistry Voltage

PerformanceCapacity

Product Alert StatementsHazards

CompositionProcess Related Information

Electronic Information ExchangeDigital Identifier

93

Label Comparison

bull CARB is continuing to evaluate potential actions to support EV battery recycling and reuse

bull Staff will continue to work with other State agencies (CEC CalRecycle and DTSC) to develop further policy conceptsbull CA Lithium Battery Recycling Working Groupbull Multi-agency white paper on end of life management

bull Staff plan to participate in SAE standard setting process

94

Next Steps

Please use GoToWebinar pane to askQUESTIONS(include a slide number in yourquestion if possible)

95

Updated ACC II Timeline

Board Hearing

June 2022

Workshop Fall

2021

Workshop Summer

2021

Workshop May 2021

Workshop September

2020

96

bull Proposals to increase ZEV accessibility to priority communitiesbull ZEV test procedure modification for BEV range certificationbull ZEV credit reporting modificationsbull Air-conditioning refrigerant updatesbull Other updates on proposals discussed todaypreviously

bull Written comments may be submitted through June 11 2021 to cleancarsarbcagov

bull Subscribe to the Clean Cars email list for updates on document availability and future workshops

Other Opportunities for Comments

97

  • Advanced Clean Cars (ACC) II Workshop
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Logistics
  • Workshop Questions
  • Californiarsquos climate and air quality challenges still require deep reductions from light-duty vehicles
  • All paths to long term targets require transition to ZEVs
  • Governorrsquos Executive Order N-79-20
  • Todayrsquos Workshop Agenda
  • LEV Criteria Emission Proposals
  • Overview of Updates
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageRecap from Previous Workshop
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageProposal Remove ZEVs from NMOG+NOx Fleet Average
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 1 NMOG+NOx Fleet AverageChanges to Certification Bins
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOx
  • 2 Aggressive Driving NMOG+NOxProposal
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIn-use Driving Patterns for Soak Time
  • 3 Cold-Start EmissionsIntermediate Soak Proposal
  • 4 Cold-Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away
  • 4 Engine Start EmissionsQuick Drive-Away Emission Testing
  • 5 Cold-Start Emissions PHEV High Power Starts
  • 5 Cold-Start EmissionsPropose Standard for PHEV High Power Starts
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsTighten Running Loss Standard
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsProtect for ldquoPuffrdquo Emissions
  • 6 Evaporative EmissionsPuff Emissions Proposal
  • 7 Medium-Duty Vehicle (MDV) Background
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 MDV Engine Operation on Chassis Dyno Different from On-Road
  • No Change in Emissions for Different Payloads on Dyno
  • 7 Update on Emission Control for MDVs
  • 7 Heavy-Duty (HD) In-Use Method for Chassis Certified MDVs
  • 7Current Chassis Certified MDV Performance Compared to Proposed Standards
  • 8 New MDV Proposal New Standard for US06 Test Cycle
  • 8 Proposed SFTP MDV Standards
  • MDV Proposal Next Steps
  • Slide Number 35
  • ZEV Credit Requirement Proposal
  • Manufacturers continue to comply with the ZEV Regulation
  • ZEV and PHEV Sales Projections
  • A market continues to emerge
  • Automakers are going Electric
  • Electrification Commitments Worldwide
  • Federal Support Growing
  • Starting Stringency Real Vehicles
  • Proposed ZEV requirement plausible with aggressive ZEV model rollouts
  • Regulatory Considerations
  • New ZEV Treatment
  • The Role of Plug-in Hybrids
  • Proposed Post-2026 Model Year Minimum PHEV Qualifications
  • New PHEV Treatment
  • Historical ZEV Credits
  • Converting the bank for 2026 and beyond
  • Potential CA ZEV Requirement Outcome
  • Staff Seeking Input
  • Slide Number 54
  • Will Resume at 1110 am
  • ZEV Cost Projections
  • ZEV Costs Overview
  • Costs Covered in the Presentation
  • Technology Updates
  • Vehicle Cost Modules
  • Battery Pack Costs
  • Fuel Cell System Costs
  • Modeling the California Fleet
  • Medium SUV Incremental Cost Example
  • Capturing Consumer Preferences for Certain Technology Attributes
  • Example of Tech Package Distribution in Medium and Large SUVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Additional Tech Packages Have Greater Cost Impacts on BEVs
  • Staff Seeking Additional Data
  • Other Costs ndash ZEV Reductions
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 72
  • Update on ZEV Assurance Measures
  • The Importance of Assuring Consumers about ZEVs
  • Current Approach to Vehicle Durability
  • Growing Indications of Battery Longevity in Vehicles
  • Fuel Cell Durability is Improving
  • Current ZEV Warranty Offerings
  • Draft Durability Requirement
  • Draft Minimum Warranty Requirements
  • Service Information
  • Draft Service Information Proposal
  • Draft Battery State of Health Standardization Proposal
  • Slide Number 84
  • Battery Recycling Proposal
  • Key Issues for Battery Recycling and Reuse
  • Lead Battery Recycling A Good Example
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Critical Energy Minerals
  • Battery Recycling and Material Recovery
  • Problem Statement ndash Why a label
  • Battery Labelling Improving the flow of information down the value chain
  • Label Comparison
  • Next Steps
  • Slide Number 95
  • Updated ACC II Timeline
  • Other Opportunities for Comments