cars and global warming - the public interest...

OSPIRG Foundation 1

Jeremiah BaumannElizabeth Ridlington

October 2005

OSPIRG Foundation

Cars and

Global WarmingHow the Clean Cars Program Curbs

Global Warming Pollution in Oregon

2 Cars and Global Warming

The authors wish to acknowledge David Nordberg of the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality and Chris Hagerbaumer of the Oregon Environmental Councilfor providing peer review.

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

The authors alone bear responsibility for any factual errors. The recommendationsare those of the OSPIRG Foundation. The views expressed in this report are those ofthe authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided editorialor technical review.

© 2005 OSPIRG Foundation

OSPIRG Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that offers an indepen-dent voice on behalf of the public interest in Oregon, at a time when public debate istoo often dominated by powerful special interests pursuing their own agendas at theexpense of the public good. We investigate problems, craft solutions, educate thepublic, train public interest leaders, and offer citizens meaningful opportunities forcivic participation.

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

OSPIRG Foundation1536 SE 11th AvePortland, OR 97214

For more information about OSPIRG, the OSPIRG Foundation, or OSPIRG studentchapters, please contact our office at 503-231-4181 or visit the OSPIRG web site atwww.ospirg.org.

Design: Kathleen Krushas, To the Point Publications

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

OSPIRG Foundation 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments 2

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Global Warming and Oregon 8

Causes of Global Warming 8

Impacts of Global Warming 8

Global Warming Pollution in Oregon 10

The Transportation Challenge 10

Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Pollution in Oregon: Past and Future 13

Tools to Reduce Global Warming Pollution from Cars

and Light Trucks 15

Zero-Emission Vehicle Requirements 15

Vehicle Global Warming Pollution Standards 19

The Need for Additional Actions 20

Policy Findings 22

Assumptions and Methodology 23

Notes 28


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Oregon has options availablenow to significantly limit itscontribution to global warm-

ing from cars and light trucks. This re-port examines the impacts of globalwarming on Oregon, the contribution ofcars and light trucks to global warming,the projected growth in pollution fromcars and light trucks, the global warm-ing pollution reductions that can beachieved by adopting the Clean Carsprogram, and other steps needed to curbglobal warming pollution from cars andtrucks.

Scientists agree that global warmingposes a serious threat to Oregon’s future.Scientists are now “very certain” that theregion is warming. Precipitation is in-creasing, sea levels on parts of the Or-egon Coast are rising, and snowpack inthe Cascades is declining. Eventually, ifno action is taken to reduce emissions ofglobal warming pollution, these effectscould add up to coastal flooding and ero-sion; reduced summer river flow for hy-dropower generation, salmon migration,and farm irrigation; and increased airpollution and heat-related deaths, amonga host of other impacts on Oregon’s en-vironment, public health and economy.

Controlling global warming pollutionfrom the transportation sector—and par-ticularly cars and light trucks—is essen-tial if Oregon is to begin to reduce itsemissions and its long-term impact onthe climate.

The transportation sector is responsiblefor 38 percent of Oregon’s releases of car-bon dioxide, the leading global warminggas. Cars and light trucks—such as pick-ups, minivans and SUVs—are the mostimportant sources of global warming pol-lution in the transportation sector.

Carbon dioxide pollution from carsand light trucks in Oregon is likely toincrease to approximately 31 percentover 1990 levels by 2020 unless actionis taken to reduce emissions.

The stagnation in federal corporateaverage fuel economy (CAFE) standardsfor cars and light trucks, the recent shifttoward greater use of less fuel-efficientSUVs, and increasing vehicle travel haveall put Oregon on a course toward dra-matically increased emissions of carbondioxide from transportation over thenext two decades.

Oregon can achieve significant reduc-tions in its carbon dioxide emissions byimplementing the Clean Cars program:

• Implementation of the global warm-ing pollution standards in the CleanCars program would produce signifi-cant reductions in vehicle globalwarming emissions as cars areequipped with currently-availabletechnologies such as direct-injectionengines, advanced transmissions, im-proved air conditioning systems, andother advanced technologies. Byimplementing the program in 2005 (totake effect in model year 2009), Or-egon will reduce carbon dioxide pol-lution from cars and light trucks by12.3 percent below projected levels by2020.

• The Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) re-quirements in the Clean Cars programwill result in sales of approximately7,000 hybrids annually in Oregon,starting with model year 2009, in-creasing to 14,000 by model year2016. This requirement will pave theway for the widespread introduction

OSPIRG Foundation 5

of clean vehicles (including not just hy-brids but eventually fuel-cell vehiclesand other advanced technologies) thatcould result in the dramatic long-termreductions in global warming pollu-tion necessary to truly curb globalwarming. In addition, the ZEV re-quirement will lead to light-duty car-bon dioxide emissions reductions ofabout 1.4 percent below projected lev-els by 2020.

• Once the program is fully imple-mented in 2016, consumers are pro-jected to save at least $3 to $7 everymonth as a result of the reduced oper-ating costs associated with the stan-dards – and more if gasoline pricesremain high. Drivers who purchase anew car or light truck in 2016 wouldcollectively save at least $8.2 millionannually. Once the loans for thosevehicles are paid off, collective annualsavings would be $40.3 million. If gasprices remain as high as they currentlyare, savings will be even greater. Theywill also be greater for drivers whodo not finance their cars.

• While implementing the Clean Carsprogram will contribute significantlyto reducing global warming pollution,Oregon will need to adopt additionalpolicies to reduce emissions from thetransportation sector in order to sta-bilize and reduce total global warm-ing pollution emissions in the longterm. Even with implementation of theClean Cars program, carbon dioxidepollution from cars and light truckscould remain 1.7 percent higher in2020 than in 2000, compared to 16percent greater if no action is taken,(because of a large projected increasein vehicle travel.

Oregon should move quickly to adoptpolicies that will stabilize, and ultimatelyreduce, emissions of carbon dioxide fromcars and light trucks.

• Oregon should adopt the Clean Carsprogram in 2005 so that new emis-sions standards take effect in modelyear 2009.

• Oregon should adopt other programsthat reduce global warming pollutionfrom the transportation sector, suchas clean car incentives that encourageindividuals and fleets to purchase ve-hicles with lower global warmingemissions, improved land-use plan-ning to apply the best “smart growth”policies and reduce vehicle travel, con-tinued transit improvements, andother measures.

Figure ES-1. Estimated Oregon Carbon Dioxide

Emissions from Cars and Light Trucks, 2000-2020

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Ca

rbo

n D

iox

ide

Em

iss

ion

s

(Mil

lio

n M

etr

ic T

on

s C

arb

on

D

iox

ide

)

Base CaseProjection

Clean Cars program


INTRODUCTION

There is now scientific consensusthat global warming is affectingour world. A December 2004

article in Science surveyed 928 ran-domly-selected scientific studies on thetopic of global warming. Exactly zeroquestioned whether pollution from hu-man activity is contributing to the warm-ing of the planet.

The effects are not limited to farawayice caps. In the summer of 2004, 46Ph.D.-level scientists from universities inOregon and Washington signed a con-sensus statement agreeing that “climatechange is underway and that it is hav-ing global effects as well as impacts inthe Pacific Northwest region.” Theirfindings include temperature increases,rising sea levels on the central and north-ern Oregon coast, and a 50% decline inour snowpack, reducing streamflowsthat we depend on for irrigation, hydro-power, and salmon migration.1

With Oregon’s legacy of leadership andinnovation when it comes to protectingthe environment, it is important that thestate lead the way toward curbing glo-bal warming pollution, particularly inthe face of inaction by the Bush admin-istration. Fortunately, clean energy op-

tions are available already to cut globalwarming pollution, and many of theseoptions are not only good for the envi-ronment, but also for the economy.

Governor Kulongoski has taken thefirst steps toward making Oregon aleader in the fight against global warm-ing. His Advisory Group on GlobalWarming has recommended a broad setof actions to reduce global warming pol-lution. They include measures to increasethe energy efficiency of appliances andbuildings in Oregon, increase our use ofclean renewable electricity sources, andcut global warming pollution from boththe electricity and transportation sectors,two of the biggest sources.

Some of the Advisory Group’s recom-mendations were enacted by the 2005Oregon Legislature. Legislators passed(nearly unanimously) a bill to increaseenergy efficiency for eleven commonappliances; the effect will be reductionsin electricity consumption that are theequivalent, in terms of global warmingpollution, of taking tens of thousandsof cars off the roads. Legislators alsopassed a bill expanding the tax credithomeowners can take for installing so-lar electric systems.

Unfortunately, the global warmingpollution cuts of these two measures areminor compared to the impact of onepolicy that the 2005 Oregon Legislaturenot only failed to pass, but tried to pro-hibit: cutting global warming pollutionfrom cars and light trucks.

The technology already exists to re-duce global warming pollution from pas-senger cars and light trucks, which areresponsible for the greatest portion ofthe global warming pollution emitted bythe transportation sector. And the tech-nology is a win-win for the environmentand the economy: cutting global warm-ing pollution from cars and trucks will

Scientists from the Pacific Northwest have

linked global warming to a measurable

increase in sea levels along central and

northern parts of the Oregon coast.

OSPIRG Foundation 7

likely result in vehicles that go fartheron a gallon of gas. That means a netbenefit for consumers’ and business’pocketbooks. Meanwhile, a host ofnewer technologies such as plug-in hy-brids and fuel cell vehicles could play animportant role in meeting the state’slong-term global warming pollution re-duction goals.

To take advantage of these technolo-gies and reduce global warming pollu-tion, Oregon must adopt the Clean Carsprogram. Rather than pass a bill direct-ing Oregon’s environmental agencies toadopt the program, the 2005 Legislatureattached an amendment to the budgetfor the Department of EnvironmentalQuality prohibiting the program. Whilethe amendment would not have passedconstitutional muster (Oregon’s consti-tution prohibits the inclusion of unre-lated matters in budget bills), theGovernor did not wait for the courts.He used his line-item veto authority tostrike the provision and, on the same day,put Oregon on the path to national lead-ership by instructing the Department ofEnvironmental Quality to begin draft-ing rules to adopt the program.

The Clean Cars program will setstrong global warming pollution limitsfor cars and light trucks and require thata percentage of vehicles sold be zero-emission or advanced-technology ve-hicles, such as hybrids. That means tensof thousands more advanced-technologycars and trucks for Oregonians – andincreased consumer choice for Orego-nians.

The Department of EnvironmentalQuality will now propose rules to theEnvironmental Quality Commission,and the Commission must approve themby the end of the year in order to bringthe Clean Cars program to Oregon bymodel year 2009. The auto industry has

threatened to use “every arrow in [their]quiver” to stop these standards. But asthis report shows, global warming is al-ready affecting Oregon and the CleanCars program offers a path toward sub-stantial cuts in global warming pollutionusing technology available today. Thereis simply no excuse for delay.


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

changed the composition of the atmo-sphere in ways that are already affectingOregon’s landscape and that threatendramatic alteration of the global climatein the years to come. Those changes willhave serious repercussions for Oregon.

Causes of GlobalWarming

Global warming is caused by a blan-ket of greenhouse gas pollution – includ-ing carbon dioxide and other pollutants– that traps solar radiation near theearth’s surface. This pollution comeslargely from cars, power plants, facto-ries and homes when we burn fossil fu-els such as coal, oil and natural gas, aswell as from other human and naturalprocesses.

Since 1750, the atmospheric concen-tration of carbon dioxide has increasedby 31 percent. The current rate of in-crease in carbon dioxide concentrationsis unprecedented in the last 20,000 yearsand the total concentration of carbondioxide has not been higher in 420,000years.2 Concentrations of other globalwarming gases, such as methane and ni-trous oxide, have increased as well.

As a result, average global tempera-tures increased during the 20th centuryby about 1° F. The 10 warmest years onrecord globally have all occurred since1990; 19 of the 20 warmest have oc-curred since 1980. The planet is warm-ing faster than at any time in the past1,000 years.3

In the Pacific Northwest, temperatureshave increased between 1o and 3o in thelast century. Nearly every urban and ru-ral temperature monitoring station in the

GLOBAL WARMING AND OREGON

Northwest has registered an increase intemperatures since 1920.4

If current trends in global warmingpollution continue, temperatures couldrise globally by an additional 2.5° F to10.4° F by 2100.5 In the Northwest, sci-entists expect an increase of between0.2o and 0.9o F per decade, for an in-crease of 2.7o F by 2030 and 5.4o F bythe 2050s. The Arctic Climate ImpactAssessment forecasts an increase of be-tween 7 and 13° F in the Arctic by theend of the century.

Impacts of GlobalWarming

The impact of this increase in globaltemperatures will vary from place toplace. Because the earth’s climate sys-tem is extraordinarily complex, the ef-fects of warming may be more or lessextreme at various points on the globeand at different times during the year.Some regions will experience drierweather, others will receive more pre-cipitation. Storm cycles will also likelybe affected in unpredictable yet signifi-cant ways.

There is little doubt, however, that thefirst signs of global warming are begin-ning to appear in Oregon and aroundthe world. Glaciers and tropicalrainforests everywhere in the world havebeen shrinking and deterioratingthroughout the 20th century. Areas ofpermafrost and seasonally frozenground have also decreased. In theNorthern Hemisphere, seasonally frozenareas decreased by 15 to 20 percentduring 20th century.6 At least half of theArctic’s summer sea ice could melt bycentury’s end.7

OSPIRG Foundation 9

very difficult to predict because of lim-ited scientific understanding about theinteractions among atmosphere, land,and ocean systems in affecting climate.The snowpack will likely continue todecline, causing earlier peak streamflows, meaning increased flow in thewinter and spring and decreased flow inthe summer. The changes in timing willaffect fish and wildlife, as well as com-merce on the rivers. Increased winterflows, combined with increased stormintensity, could change our ability tomanage flood damage. Reduced summerflows will reduce water available forhydropower generation and farm irriga-tion, particularly in Eastern Oregonwhere irrigation districts rely on melt-ing snow during the summer. Reducedflows could also hurt salmon migration,affecting Oregon’s fishing industry, andcould reduce water quality because ofhigher water temperatures, increasedsalinity, and increased concentrations ofpollution.10

According to Northwest scien-tists, sea level is “very certain” to con-tinue to rise. The impact will vary, as thegeology of the area is causing the landto rise (south of Florence, the land is ris-ing fast enough to compensate for risingsea levels). Increasing sea levels will likelyincrease wave heights and cause in-creased erosion along the Oregon coast.The shoreline will likely move landwardin some areas.11 Possibly even more dam-aging could be increased frequency ofstorm surges, which could lead to satu-rated ground and more slope failure incoastal bluffs and hills.

The likelihood and severity of thesepotential impacts is difficult to predict.But this much is certain: rapid changes

Scientists in the Northwest agree on arange of specific impacts already beingmeasured:

• The Northwest has seen a 10% in-crease in average precipitation sincethe beginning of the 20th century, witha 30-40% increase in eastern Wash-ington and Northern Idaho, whereprecipitation affects flow levels in theColumbia and Snake watersheds.

• Rising sea levels on the central andnorthern Oregon coast (from Florenceto Astoria) are submerging the landat a rate of 1.5-2 millimeters per year,according to data collected between1930 and 1995. The total increase isapproximately 4 inches.

• Total April 1 snowpack in the Cascadesdeclined approximately 50% between1950 and 1995. Most monitoring sta-tions in the Pacific Northwest haveshown a decline. As a result, the peaksnowpack has shifted earlier in theyear, by as much as 40 days. Accord-ingly, March river flows have in-creased, but June river flows havedecreased.8

Future Impacts

The projected temperature increases inthe Northwest described above are“highly likely” to result in an increase inthe elevation of the upper tree line, longergrowing seasons, increased length of thefire season, earlier breeding by animalsand plants, longer and more intense al-lergy seasons, and possible changes in theareas where various vegetation typesgrow.9 A longer growing season is aproblem because it gives opportunitiesfor pests and diseases to affect plants.

Future changes in precipitation are


Electricity42%

Industrial 12%

Residential5%

Commercial3%

Transportation38%

in climate such as those predicted by thelatest scientific research would have adramatic, disruptive effect on Oregon’senvironment, economy and publichealth—unless immediate action is takento limit our emissions of global warm-ing pollutants such as carbon dioxide.

Global WarmingPollution in Oregon

Carbon dioxide emitted from fossil fueluse is the leading cause of global warm-ing. Oregon’s total greenhouse gas emis-sions in 2000 were about 68 millionmetric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent.As of 2004, Oregon has been emittingglobal warming pollution at levels 15%higher than in 1990. If we continue ig-noring these emissions, by 2025Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions willbe 61% higher than 1990 levels.12

The transportation sector is responsiblefor approximately 38% of Oregon’s re-leases of carbon dioxide, second only tothe electricity sector (42%). (See Figure 1.)Cars and light trucks—such as pickups,minivans and SUVs—are the most signifi-cant source of global warming pollutionwithin the transportation sector.

A Note on UnitsBecause various gases contrib-

ute to global warming and the po-

tency of the warming effects of

those gases varies, inventories of

global warming pollution typically

use units that communicate emis-

sions in terms of their global warm-

ing potential.

In this report, we use units of

“carbon dioxide equivalent.” Other

documents communicate pollution

in terms of “carbon equivalent”—

the amount of carbon (in the form

of carbon dioxide) that would need

to be released to create a similar

global warming effect. To translate

the carbon dioxide equivalent to

carbon equivalent, one can sim-

ply multiply by 0.2727.

Figure 1. Oregon Sources of Carbon

Dioxide Emissions in 2000

The TransportationChallenge

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

Three trends in the transportationsector make the challenge of reducingglobal warming pollution in Oregoneven greater.

Increasing Vehicle MilesTraveled (VMT)

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is thesum of distances traveled by all motorvehicles in a specified system of high-way for a given period of time.

OSPIRG Foundation 11

Oregon residents are traveling moremiles than ever before. Between 1983and 2003, the number of VMT annu-ally on Oregon’s roads increased from20.7 million miles to 34.5 million miles—an increase of 66%.16

Stagnating Fuel Economy

The imposition of federal CorporateAverage Fuel Economy (CAFE) stan-

dards beginning in 1975 led to dramaticimprovements in the fuel efficiency ofAmerican cars and light duty trucks. TheCAFE standards required a gradual in-crease in fuel economy during the 1970sand 1980s, topping out at an averagefuel economy for new cars of 27.5 milesper gallon (mpg) by 1990 and 20.7 mpgfor light trucks by 1996.17

Other Important Global Warming Pollutants

This report focuses primarily on transportation-related pollution of carbon di-

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

gas released in the largest quantities by cars and trucks. While carbon dioxide

makes up 84% of Oregon’s global warming emissions, cars and trucks also pro-

duce other global warming pollutants that must be considered in any emissions

reduction strategy and which would be regulated by the Clean Cars program.

• Methane – Methane gas is the second-most important contributor to glo-bal warming, making up about 7% of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions.Methane is a potent global warming pollutant – 30 times as potent as car-bon dioxide – and may contribute significantly to global warming.

• Nitrous Oxide – Nitrous oxide is also produced in automobile exhaust,with mobile combustion sources estimated to contribute about 13 percentof U.S. nitrous oxide emissions in 200213 and about 18 percent of Oregon’semissions in 2000.14 As with methane emissions, improved pollution con-trol measures may reduce nitrous oxide emissions in the future. Nitrousoxide makes up 6% of Oregon’s greenhouse gas emissions.

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) – HFCs are extremely potent global warm-ing gases, yet tend to be released in only very small quantities. HFCs areoften used a coolants in vehicle air conditioning systems and can escapefrom those systems into the environment. HFCs make up 1% of Oregon’sgreenhouse gas emissions.

• Black carbon – Black carbon, otherwise known as “soot,” is a product ofthe burning of fossil fuels, including diesel fuel used in heavy-duty trucksand a small percentage of light-duty vehicles. Recent research has sug-gested that, because black carbon absorbs sunlight in the atmosphereand on snow and icepack, it may be a major contributor to global warming,perhaps second in importance only to carbon dioxide. Research is con-tinuing on the degree to which black carbon pollution contributes to globalwarming.15


In the decade-and-a-half following en-actment of the CAFE standards, the “realworld” fuel economy of passenger carsnearly doubled—from 13.4 mpg in 1975to 24.0 mpg in 1988. Similarly, lighttrucks experienced an increase in real-world fuel economy from 11.8 mpg in1975 to 18.3 mpg in 1987.18

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

Until recently, the federal governmenthad refused to increase CAFE standardsfor more than a decade. Changes in driv-ing patterns—including higher speedsand increased urban driving—have ledto a real-world decrease in fuel economy.An EPA analysis of fuel economy trendsfound that the average real-world fueleconomy of light-duty vehicles sold in2003 was lower than the average fueleconomy of vehicles sold in 1981. In-deed, the average real-world fuel

economy of new cars and light trucksactually declined by 7 percent between1988 and 2003.19 (See Figure 2.)

Amid growing public pressure to im-prove vehicle fuel economy, the U.S.Department of Transportation is increas-ing CAFE standards for light trucks by amodest 1.5 mpg between 2005 and 2007and plans a further increase over the nextseveral years. These actions do not gonearly far enough to take advantage ofmany technologies that could cost-effec-tively improve fuel economy, and theDepartment’s proposed rule unfortu-nately contains loopholes allowingmanufacturers to avoid increase fuel-ef-ficiency standards by making slight in-creases in vehicle size.

Growing Numbers of SUVsand Light Trucks

While the fuel economy of the averagecar and light truck has stagnated overthe past two decades, the average fueleconomy of the entire new-car fleet has

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

19

75

19

77

19

79

19

81

19

83

19

85

19

87

19

89

19

91

19

93

19

95

19

97

19

99

20

01

20

03

Year

Fu

el E

co

no

my (

Miles p

er

Gallo

n)

Car - CAFE Standard

Car - Real WorldMileage

Combined RealWorld Mileage

Truck - CAFEStandard

Truck - Real WorldMileage

Figure 2. Average Fuel Economy for New Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet

on the Decline20


declined—thanks to the dramatic shifttoward sport utility vehicles (SUVs), vansand light trucks.

In 1975, when the first federal CAFEstandards were enacted, SUVs made up2 percent of the light-duty vehicle mar-ket, vans 5 percent, and pickup trucks13 percent. By model year 2004, how-ever, SUVs accounted for 26 percent oflight-duty vehicle sales, vans 7 percent,and pick-up trucks 15 percent. The light-duty market share of passenger cars andstation wagons dropped over the same

period from 81 percent to 52 percent.21

(See Figures 3a-3c.)This shift toward larger vehicles has

caused the average fuel economy of theentire new light-duty vehicle fleet to dipas low as 20.4 mpg in 2001—lower thanat any time since 1980 and down bynearly 8 percent from the historical peakin 1987 and 1988.22

The combination of these three fac-tors—more miles traveled, increasinglyin trucks and SUVs, with stagnant fueleconomy across the entire vehicle fleet—poses a great challenge to Oregon policy-makers as they attempt to reduce globalwarming pollution from the transporta-tion sector.

Vehicle Carbon DioxidePollution in Oregon:Past and Future

Based on Oregon-specific fuel con-sumption data compiled by the U.S. En-ergy Information Administration (EIA),cars and light-duty trucks released ap-proximately 10.7 million metric tons ofcarbon dioxide (MMTCO2) into the at-mosphere in 1990. By 2000, those emis-

The low fuel economy of SUVs has contributed

to a declining fleet-average fuel economy

level.

Photo: Sandy Ridlington

Figure 3 (a-c). Light-Duty Vehicle Mix Shifts from Cars to Trucks, Vans and SUVs

Model Year 1975

71%9%

13%5% 2%

Model Year 2004

Model Year 1987

67%

5%

15%

7%6%

48%

4%15%

7%

26%


sions had increased by about 13 percent,to 12.1 MMTCO2—meaning that carsand trucks were responsible for approxi-mately 18 percent of Oregon’s contribu-tion to global warming in 2000.23

Any attempt to project Oregon’s futureglobal warming pollution depends greatlyon the assumptions used. The “Assump-tions and Methodology” section at theconclusion of this report describes theseassumptions in detail. Simply put, thefollowing projections (which are basedlargely on data and projections by stateand federal government agencies andwhich we will term the “base case”) as-sume continued growth in vehicle travel,slight improvement in vehicle fueleconomy, and a continuation of the trendtoward increased purchases of sport util-ity vehicles and other light trucks.

Based on these assumptions, carbondioxide emissions from the Oregon light-duty vehicle fleet are projected to experi-ence a 3 percent increase over 2000 levelsby 2010, followed by a further 12 per-cent increase between 2010 and 2020. By2020, carbon dioxide emissions from carsand light trucks will exceed 1990 levelsby 31 percent in the absence of action toreduce emissions. (See Figure 4.)

An increase of such magnitude wouldseverely challenge Oregon’s ability to sta-bilize and eventually reduce globalwarming pollution from the transporta-tion sector and for the state as a whole.Should these increases in emissions fromcars and light trucks occur, Oregonwould need to achieve dramatic reduc-tions in global warming pollution fromother sectors of the state’s economy inorder to achieve long-term reductions of75 to 85 percent below 1990 levels, thelevel of reduction estimated by scientistsas necessary to stabilize the climate andlimit dangerous effects of global warm-ing.24 Governor Kulongoski has adopteda goal of reducing global warming pol-lution 75 percent below 1990 levels by2050.

However, this path toward increasingcarbon dioxide pollution from cars andlight trucks is not inevitable. Public poli-cies that require or encourage the sale ofmore fuel-efficient or advanced technol-ogy cars can make a significant dent inOregon’s future emissions of globalwarming pollution while potentially sav-ing money for drivers. One of the mostpowerful policy options is the Clean Carsprogram.

Figure 4. Actual and Projected Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Light-Duty

Vehicles in Oregon, 1990-2020

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

O2)


Oregon has many potential toolsavailable to reduce emissionsof global warming pollution

from the transportation sector. Amongthe most powerful of those tools are theglobal warming pollution standards forcars and trucks contained in the CleanCars program.

The Clean Air Act gives states twooptions for controlling motor vehiclepollution. States may choose to complywith federal emission standards or adoptthe more protective standards imple-mented by the state of California, theonly state empowered by the Clean AirAct to develop its own emission regula-tions for cars and trucks. The Clean Carsprogram is a package of air pollutionregulations developed in California (andknown there as the “Low Emissions Ve-hicle II” or “LEV II” program) to con-trol air pollution from cars and lighttrucks.

For more than a decade, the Clean Carsprogram has limited smog-formingchemicals and toxic air pollution to moreprotective levels than federal standards.The program also includes a technology-driving policy called the Zero-EmissionVehicle, or ZEV, requirements. By put-ting more advanced-technology cars,such as hybrids, on the roads, the ZEVprogram will lower emissions of globalwarming gases, as well as smog-formingand toxic air pollutants.

In 2002, the California Legislaturepassed a law requiring the California AirResources Board (CARB) to incorporateinto the Clean Cars program standardslimiting global warming emissions fromcars and light trucks. CARB issued finalstandards in 2004. The standards willbring about significant reductions in car-bon dioxide and other greenhouse gas

emissions from cars and light trucks overthe next decade.

Adopting the Clean Cars program,with both the global warming pollutionstandards and the ZEV requirements, isan important step in Oregon’s efforts toreduce the state’s global warming emis-sions.

Zero-Emission VehicleRequirements

One part of the Clean Cars program—known officially as the Low EmissionVehicle II program—reduces emissionsof smog-forming and other hazardouspollutants. These include toxic pollut-ants, such as benzene, that are inOregon’s air at dangerous levels. TheLEV II program establishes fleet-widelimits on tailpipe emissions and also re-quires the sale of advanced-technologyvehicles, such as hybrids, that have evenlower emissions. These advanced-tech-nology vehicle requirements, eventuallycall for the sale of zero-emission vehicles(ZEVs), and are therefore known as theZEV requirements. The technologicalchanges encouraged by the ZEV require-ments will reduce emissions of globalwarming pollutants in addition to theother pollutants at which the require-ment is aimed.

By adopting the program, Oregon canlay the groundwork to have increasingpercentages of advanced-technology ve-hicles on the road over the next decadeand more. The ZEV requirements havethree main components.

Pure Zero-Emission Vehicles

“Pure” zero-emission vehicles (pureZEVs) are those—like battery-electricand fuel-cell vehicles—that release no

TOOLS TO REDUCE GLOBAL WARMING

POLLUTION FROM CARS AND LIGHT TRUCKS


toxic or smog-forming pollutants fromtheir tailpipes or fuel systems. They alsohave the potential to release far fewerglobal warming gases than today’s ve-hicles. (Note, however, that fuel-cell ve-hicles have zero emissions only if thehydrogen is generated from renewablesources.)

The ZEV requirements were recentlymodified to shift the emphasis of the pro-gram from near-term deployment of bat-tery-electric vehicles to the long-termdevelopment of hydrogen fuel-cell ve-hicles. As a result, automakers will nothave to sell fuel-cell or other pure zero-emission vehicles in Oregon until at leastmodel year 2012. Even then, the num-ber of pure ZEVs required for sale inOregon would be small, representing lessthan one percent of new car and lighttruck sales until model year 2016.25

In addition, the California Air Re-sources Board (CARB), which adminis-ters the program, is scheduled to reviewthe status of fuel-cell technology priorto enforcing any pure ZEV requirementsfor the 2009 model year and beyond.26

The ZEV requirements, therefore, cur-rently require the sale of very few actualzero-emission vehicles over the next de-cade. But they do provide an incentivefor automakers to continue research anddevelopment work on technologies suchas hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles that couldprovide zero-emission transportation inthe future.

Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle

(PZEV) Credits

The majority of vehicles thatautomakers produce to comply with theZEV requirements will be vehicles thatreceive “partial ZEV credit”—otherwiseknown as “PZEVs.” PZEVs are conven-tional gasoline vehicles in every way butone: they are engineered to produce dra-matically lower emissions of air toxicsand smog-forming pollutants.

While PZEVs will play an importantrole in helping Oregon to achieve its airquality goals, particularly in the area ofair toxics, the technologies used inPZEVs do not necessarily make a sub-stantial contribution to reducing globalwarming pollution from cars. Thus, wedo not assume any global warming ben-efits from the PZEV portion of the pro-gram.

Advanced Technology PZEVs (AT-

PZEVs)

The greatest near-term global warm-ing impact of the ZEV requirements willlikely come from provisions to encour-age the sale of PZEVs that also run on acleaner alternative fuel, such as com-pressed natural gas, or that use advancedtechnologies, such as a hybrid-electricdrive. These are known as “advancedtechnology PZEVs” or “AT-PZEVs.” Toencourage automakers to release addi-tional new hybrid vehicles as early aspossible, automakers are allowed tocomply with up to 40 percent of theirZEV requirements in the early years ofthe program through the sale of AT-PZEVs.

Hybrid-electric vehicles are the mostlikely technology to be used to complywith AT-PZEV standards. Hybrids haveproven to be very popular with consum-ers, especially in an era of higher andrapidly fluctuating gasoline prices. Salesof hybrid vehicles have increased steadilysince their introduction to the domesticmarket in December 1999. About85,000 hybrids were sold in the U.S. in2004, almost double the sales of the pre-vious year.27

Thus far, four models of vehicles havebeen certified to AT-PZEV emission stan-dards: the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civichybrid, the Ford Escape hybrid, and thenatural gas-powered Honda Civic GX..28

(Several other hybrid vehicles, such asthe Honda Accord, are on the market


but either their emissions are too high tomeet AT-PZEV standards or theautomaker does not want to offer theextended warranty required with PZEVs.These vehicles nonetheless can achievemeasurable reductions in global warm-ing emissions.) Unfortunately, althougha healthy market for hybrids appears toexist, automakers have not yet suppliedhybrids in large enough quantities tomeet consumer demand. By the end of2005, the demand crunch could easeslightly if automakers introduce six ad-ditional hybrid models as planned—in-cluding hybrid versions of the NissanAltima and Toyota Highlander—thatcould qualify for AT-PZEV credit.29

Should automakers choose to maxi-mize their use of AT-PZEVs to complywith the ZEV requirements—and do sousing vehicles similar to the ToyotaPrius—hybrids could make up about 5.1percent of Oregon car and light trucksales in 2008, increasing to 7 percent by2012. (See Figure 5.) This translates tosales of about 7,000 hybrids in Oregonin 2008, increasing to approximately14,000 annually by 2016. Because theZEV requirements offer a great deal offlexibility, however, automakers couldchoose to comply by manufacturing

greater numbers of less-advanced hy-brids or smaller numbers of pure ZEVs,among other options.

Also unclear is the degree of globalwarming gas reductions that can be ex-pected from vehicles complying with AT-PZEV standards. Hybrid-electricvehicles and alternative-fuel vehiclesvary greatly in their emissions of globalwarming pollution. Some, like theToyota Prius, offer great reductions inglobal warming emissions. Others, suchas hybrid pickup trucks to be sold byGeneral Motors and DaimlerChrysler,continue to have significant globalwarming pollution despite their im-proved emissions compared to conven-tional models. The ZEV requirementsprovide additional credit to hybrid-elec-tric vehicles that attain a greater shareof their power from an electric motor(generally allowing them to achievelower carbon dioxide emissions), butthese credits are not directly tied to glo-bal warming pollution. For the purposesof this analysis, we assume that hybridsmanufactured to comply with AT-PZEVstandards will release about 30 percentfewer global warming gases per milethan conventional vehicles.30

Figure 5. ZEV Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle Sales, 2008 through 2020

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Perc

en

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

Sale

s

PZEV

AT-PZEV

ZEV


The ZEV Requirements:Long-Term Impacts

On the front end, no assessment ofshort-term global warming pollution re-ductions can precisely quantify the po-tential long-term and indirect benefits ofthe ZEV requirements in reducing car-bon dioxide emissions. At its heart, theprogram is a “technology forcing” pro-gram—one that jump-starts advancedtechnology vehicle development and theadoption of these technologies in themainstream auto market. That beingsaid, adoption of the program will likelybring about significant long-term pollu-tion reductions as technological changesbrought about by the program spread toother vehicles in the Oregon car andtruck fleet.

An example of the potential power ofthe program to hasten technologicalchange is the development of hybrid ve-hicles. California’s adoption of the origi-nal ZEV requirement sparked public-and private-sector research efforts intothe development of advanced batteriesand electric-drive technologies. While thegeneration of full-function electric ve-hicles that resulted from that research—such as Honda’s EV-Plus and GeneralMotors’s EV1—were not sold in largequantities, the research effort drove ad-vances in electric vehicle technology thatfacilitated the birth of the popular hy-brid-electric systems that now powerhundreds of thousands of vehicles world-wide and have laid the groundwork forrecent advances in fuel-cell vehicle tech-nology.31

Similarly, the current form of the ZEVrequirements is designed to encouragecontinued investment in hybrid-electricand hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle develop-ment and may lead to the developmentof new types of vehicles (such as “plug-in hybrids” that combine the benefits ofbattery-electric and hybrid-electric ve-

hicles) with significant benefits for theclimate. Once developed and offered toconsumers, it is possible that these ve-hicles could come to represent a fargreater share of the new car market thanis estimated here.

The ZEV Requirements:Short-Term Impacts

The short-term impact of the ZEV re-quirements on carbon dioxide emissionsin Oregon will largely be determined byhow automakers choose to comply withthe program’s flexible provisions. Thereare almost infinite options available toautomakers for compliance—however, itis likely that one or several technologieswill dominate the mix of vehicles certi-fied under the program.

We assume that automakers will takemaximum advantage of the ability tomeet the ZEV requirements with PZEVsand AT-PZEVs. We also assume that ve-hicles sold to meet AT-PZEV require-ments are hybrid-electric vehicles withsimilar technological characteristics tothe Toyota Prius. We assume that anyvehicles sold to meet pure ZEV require-ments are hydrogen fuel-cell vehicleswhose fuel is generated from natural gas.And we use conservative assumptionsabout the carbon dioxide emission re-ductions that could result from hybridor fuel-cell vehicles.

Using these assumptions, implementa-tion of the program in Oregon as sched-uled beginning in the 2009 model yearwould reduce light-duty vehicle carbondioxide emissions by about 1.4 percentversus base case projections by 2020—for a total reduction in emissions ofabout 0.2 MMTCO2. (See Figure 6.)

Oregon’s adoption of the Clean Carsstandards will result in reduced globalwarming and toxic pollution from ve-hicles as the ZEV requirements take ef-fect. Implementing vehicle global


warming pollution standards will pro-vide even greater emission reductions.

Vehicle Global WarmingPollution Standards

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

The legislation required the CaliforniaAir Resources Board (CARB) to proposelimits that “achieve the maximum fea-sible and cost effective reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions from motorvehicles.” Limits on vehicle travel, newgasoline or vehicle taxes, or limitationson ownership of SUVs or other lighttrucks cannot be imposed to attain thenew standards.32

In September 2004, CARB adoptedrules for implementation of the globalwarming pollution standards. As re-quired by the initial legislation, CARBhas submitted the regulations to the Cali-fornia Legislature for review during

2005. Those proposed rules provided thebasis of our analysis here.

In developing the global warming pol-lution standards, the CARB staff re-viewed several analyses of the types oftechnologies that could be used toachieve “maximum feasible and cost ef-fective” reductions in global warmingpollution from vehicles. CARB’s pro-posal estimates that near-term technolo-gies could reduce average globalwarming pollution from cars and thelightest light trucks by 25 percent andfrom heavier light trucks by 18 percent.Over the medium term (2013 to 2016),cost-effective reductions of 34 percent forcars and smaller light trucks and 25 per-cent for heavier light trucks are fea-sible.33

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

Figure 6. Projected Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Under ZEV

Requirements (Light-Duty Vehicles)

11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

O2)

Base Case Projection

ZEV Requirements


the required 25 percent reduction wouldcost about $1,029 more.34

However, the agency also estimatesthat the rules will significantly reduceoperating costs for new vehicles. Thoughconsumers will face higher monthly loanpayments when purchasing vehicles thatcomply with the standards, those in-creased costs will be more than offset bylower operating expenses. For example,a consumer who buys a new car in 2016will pay $20 more per month on the carloan but will save $23 per month in op-erating expenses, for a total savings of$3 per month. After the loan is paid off,the consumer will save the full $23 permonth.

Assuming that the same number of carsand light trucks are sold annually in 2016as are sold now and that every vehicle isfinanced with a loan, drivers who pur-chase a new car or light truck in 2016collectively would save $8.2 million.Once the loans for those vehicles are paidoff, collective annual savings would be$40.3 million. Savings of this level wouldaccrue for vehicles purchased in otheryears, also.

Drivers who purchase a light truck orwho pay for the vehicle in cash will ex-perience greater savings.35 (See Table 1.)These savings assume gasoline costs of$1.74 per gallon.36 Higher prices willincrease the savings to consumers. CARBalso projects that the net impact of thestandards to the state’s economy will bepositive, suggesting that Oregon could

save money while at the same time re-ducing the state’s overall emissions ofglobal warming pollution.37

Assuming that the September 2004version of the global warming pollutionstandards is adopted as proposed, whenOregon implements those standards be-ginning with the 2009 model year theresulting reductions in global warmingpollution would be significant. Com-pared to the base case projection, theemission standards would reduce light-duty carbon dioxide emissions by 12.3percent by 2020—for a total reductionof 1.7 MMTCO2. (See Figure 7.)

The Need for AdditionalActions

Implementing the Clean Cars programwill contribute significantly to efforts toreduce global warming pollution fromOregon’s transportation sector. Withboth components in effect, emissionsfrom light-duty cars and trucks wouldbe 1.7 percent greater in 2020 than theywere in 2000, compared to 16 percentgreater if no action is taken.

Though it yields significant progressand is a major step forward, implement-ing the Clean Cars program will not beenough to reduce vehicle emissions be-low 1990 levels. Oregon will need to dofar more to reduce global warming pol-lution from cars and light trucks andmust pay special attention to reducingthe growth in vehicle-miles traveled.

A number of policy options exist forOregon to further reduce emissions fromcars and light trucks, including:

• Cents-per-mile insurance, which canbe offered by private insurers and al-lows drivers to purchase vehicle insur-ance by the mile. Such a programmakes drivers more aware of the fullcosts of each mile driven and can re-

Car Light Truck

Increased Car Cost $1,064 $1,029

Increased Monthly Loan Payment $20 $19

Decreased Monthly Operating Cost $23 $26

Monthly Net Savings $3 $7

Table 1. Net Savings for Consumer Under Global

Warming Pollution Standards in 201638


11

11.5

12

12.5

13

13.5

14

14.5

15

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

2014

2016

2018

2020

Year

Carb

on

Dio

xid

e E

mis

sio

ns

(MM

TC

O2)

Base CaseProjection

ZEV and GlobalWarming PollutionStandards

duce excessive driving. It can also pro-vide a benefit to senior citizens andothers who drive less than average.Oregon has a tax credit available forcompanies who offer pay-as-you-driveinsurance.

• Improved transit service. Better busand rail service within and betweencities would reduce the amount citi-zens need to drive. Carpools andvanpools can help serve areas not ac-cessible to transit.

• Incentives for individuals and fleets topurchase vehicles with lower carbonemissions. Oregon already has a taxcredit available to purchasers of alter-native-fuel vehicles, which includeshybrids. One possible improvementwould be to make the credit availableonly to cars that exceed the Clean Carsprogram’s standards and make thecredit proportional to reductions inglobal warming pollution. Anotherapproach would be to create a pro-gram offering a rebate to car buyerswho purchase vehicles that emit lessglobal warming pollution and puttinga fee on purchasers of less efficient

vehicles. The program could thus berevenue-neutral for the state. Con-necticut and several other New En-gland states are considering such aprogram.39

The federal government also could as-sist Oregon’s efforts to reduce globalwarming pollution by increasing the fed-eral corporate average fuel economy(CAFE) standard.

Figure 7. Reductions in Carbon Dioxide Emissions Under Clean Cars

Program (Including ZEV Requirements and Global Warming Pollution

Standards, Light-Duty Vehicles)Figure 7. Reductions in Carbon Dioxide

Emissions Under Clean Cars Program (Including ZEV Requirements and

Global Warming Pollution Standards, Light-Duty Vehicles)

Increasing numbers of SUVs and pickup trucks have added to

Washington’s global warming pollution.

Photo: Sandy Ridlington


Attaining reductions in carbondioxide emissions will requiresignificant actions to reduce

emissions from light-duty vehicles.

To achieve this goal:

• Oregon should adopt the Clean Carsprogram so that it will take effect in2008.

• The state should take aggressive ac-tion to further reduce transportation-sector global warming pollution,including actions that speed the de-ployment of environmentally prefer-able vehicles (such as hybrids with lowgreenhouse gas emissions), reduce therate of growth in vehicle travel, andencourage improvements in the fuelefficiency of conventional vehicles.

POLICY FINDINGS


Projections of future global warm-ing pollution from automobilesdepend a great deal on the

assumptions used. This section details theassumptions we made about futuretrends and explains the methodology weused to estimate the impact of variousprograms.

Baseline Light-DutyVehicle Carbon DioxideEmissions

Carbon dioxide emissions from light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks) inOregon in 1990 and 2000 were basedon state-specific motor gasoline usagedata from U.S. Department of Energy,Energy Information Administration(EIA), State Energy Data 2001: Con-sumption (downloaded fromwww.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_use/total/pdf/use_all.pdf, 7 July 2005). Fuelconsumption data for the transportationsector in BTU was converted to carbondioxide emissions based on conversionfactors from EIA, Annual Energy Out-look 2003, Appendix H and EIA, Emis-sions of Greenhouse Gases in the UnitedStates 2001, Appendix B. The propor-tion of transportation-sector gasolineemissions attributable to light-duty ve-hicles was estimated by dividing energyuse by light-duty vehicles by total trans-portation-sector motor gasoline use asreported in EIA, Annual Energy Outlook2003.

Vehicle-Miles Traveled

Historic vehicle-miles traveled data forOregon were obtained from FederalHighway Administration, U.S. Depart-ment of Transportation, Highway Sta-

tistics, Table VM-2, Functional SystemTravel, for 1990-2003. Projected vehicle-miles traveled were obtained fromOregon’s Department of Transportation.

VMT Percentages by VehicleType

To estimate the percentage of vehicle-miles traveled accounted for by cars andlight-duty trucks, we relied on twosources of data: actual VMT splits byvehicle type for 2000 through 2002 fromthe Federal Highway Administration,Highway Statistics series of reports andprojections of future VMT splits outputfrom the EPA’s MOBILE6 mobile sourceemission estimating model. (Oregon-spe-cific data on VMT splits are unavailablebut the state has a higher ratio of regis-tered trucks to cars than the nationalaverage, according to Federal HighwayAdministration, Highway Statistics2002, October 2003, Table MV-1. Thismay make our analysis of the programs’benefits slightly higher than will likelyoccur because per-mile emission reduc-tions for cars are greater than for trucksand total emission reductions areovercounted in Oregon by using nationalfigures for car and light truck registra-tions.)

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

ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY


In order to estimate a trend that re-flects both the more car-heavy currentmakeup of VMT and the long-term trendtoward increasing travel in light trucks,we created two curves, one extrapolat-ing the continued linear decline in thecar portion of light-duty VMT based ontrends in FHWA data from 1990 to 2002and another using the EPA MOBILE6estimates. We then assumed that the splitin VMT would trend toward the EPAestimate over time, so that by 2020, carsare responsible for approximately 40percent of light-duty VMT. (See Figure8.)

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

VMT Percentages by VehicleAge

Vehicle-miles traveled by age of vehiclewere determined based on VMT accu-mulation data presented in EPA, FleetCharacterization Data for MOBILE6:

Development and Use of Age Distribu-tions, Average Annual Mileage Accumu-lation Rates, and Projected VehicleCounts for Use in MOBILE6, Septem-ber 2001.

Vehicle Carbon Dioxide

Emissions

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

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

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Perc

en

tag

e o

f L

igh

t-D

uty

VM

T

Trend Based on FHWAData

Base Case Projection

EPA Projection

Figure 8. Percentage of Light-Duty Vehicle-Miles Traveled in Cars


Light-Duty Automotive Technology andFuel Economy Trends: 1975-2004, April2004. (The degradation factor representsthe degree to which real-world fueleconomy falls below that reported as aresult of EPA testing.)

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

For the global warming gas emissionstandards, we assumed percentage reduc-tions in per-mile vehicle emissions as de-scribed in California EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Air Resources Board,Staff Report: Initial Statement of Rea-sons for Proposed Rulemaking, PublicHearing to Consider Adoption of Regu-

lations to Control Greenhouse GasEmissions from Motor Vehicles, 6 Au-gust 2004.

ZEV Requirements:

Implementation

In calculating emission reductions re-sulting from the ZEV requirements, weassumed implementation of the programbeginning in model year 2009 with thesame requirements as the California pro-gram. Vehicles meeting the AT-PZEVstandards were assumed to be “Type D”Hybrids (similar to the Toyota Prius),while vehicles meeting pure ZEV stan-dards were assumed to be hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles whose fuel was producedfrom natural gas.

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

each category (cars and light trucks)were estimated based on year 2003new vehicle registration figures fromAlliance of Automobile Manufactur-ers, Light Truck Country, downloadedfrom autoalliance.org/archives/000141.html, 27 August 2004, withthe light truck category divided intoheavy and light light-duty trucks us-ing EPA fleet composition estimatesas described above. These figures werethen multiplied by the percentage ofsales subject to the ZEV requirementsfor each year.

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


• Where necessary, these values weremultiplied by the percentage of ve-hicles supplied by major manufactur-ers versus all manufacturers ascalculated from Ward’s Communica-tions, 2003 Ward’s Automotive Year-book, 233. (Non-major manu-facturers may comply with the ZEVrequirements entirely by supplyingPZEVs.)

• This value was then multiplied by thepercentage sales requirement to arriveat the number of ZEV credits thatwould need to be accumulated in eachmodel year.

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

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

• No pure ZEVs were assumed to be re-quired for sale in Oregon until the2012 model year. For the 2012through 2017 model years, in whichthe pure ZEV requirement is based ona specific number of California sales,we divided the annual pure ZEV re-quirement in the California regula-tions by the number of new vehiclesregistered in California in 2001 perWard’s Communications, 2002Ward’s Automotive Yearbook, 272.We assumed that the same percentagewould apply to vehicle sales in Or-egon.

It was assumed that manufacturerswould comply with ZEV and AT-PZEVrequirements through the sale of fuel-celland hybrid passenger cars. While heavier

light trucks are also covered by ZEV re-quirements, manufacturers have the flex-ibility to use credits accumulated fromthe sale of cars to achieve the light-truckrequirement. Percentages of various ve-hicle types assumed to be required un-der the ZEV requirements are depictedin Figure 6 (assuming a roughly 60/40percentage split between light-truck salesand car sales throughout the entire pe-riod).

Fleet Emissions Projections

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

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

Other Assumptions

In addition to the above, we made thefollowing assumptions:

• Rebound effects – Research hasshown that improved vehicle fuel ef-ficiency often results in an increase invehicle-miles traveled. By reducing themarginal cost of driving, efforts to im-prove efficiency provide an economicincentive for additional vehicle travel.Studies have found that this “reboundeffect” may reduce the carbon diox-ide emission savings of fuel economy-


improving policies by as much as 20to 30 percent.40 To account for thiseffect, carbon dioxide reductions ineach of the scenarios were discountedby 20 percent. This estimate is likelyquite conservative: in its own analy-sis using California-specific incomeand transportation data, CARB esti-mated a rebound effect ranging from7 percent to less than 1 percent.41

• Mix shifting – We assumed that nei-ther of the policies under study wouldresult in changes in the class of ve-hicles purchased by Oregon residents,or the relative amount that they aredriven (rebound effect excluded). Inaddition, we assumed that the vehicleage distributions assumed by EPA re-main constant under each of the poli-cies. In other words, we assumed thatany increase in vehicle prices broughtabout by the global warming emissionstandards would not dissuade con-sumers from purchasing new vehiclesor encourage them to purchase lighttrucks when they would otherwisepurchase cars (or vice versa). Mixshifting impacts such as these are quitecomplex and modeling them was be-yond the scope of this report, but theydo have the potential to make a sig-nificant impact on future carbon di-oxide emissions.


1. Scientific Consensus Statement on the LikelyImpacts of Climate Change in the Pacific North-west. June 2004.

2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,IPCC Third Assessment Report—Climate Change2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for PolicyMakers, 2001.

3. Governor’s Advisory Group on Global Warm-ing. Oregon Strategy for Greenhouse Gas Reduc-tions. State of Oregon, December 2004.

4. Mote, P.W. 2004. “Trends in temperature andprecipitation in the Pacific Northwest during thetwentieth century.” Northwest Science 77(4): 271-282. Cited in Scientific Consensus Statement onthe Likely Impacts of Climate Change in the Pa-cific Northwest. June 2004.

5. See note 2.

6. Robert Roy Britt, “Surprising Side Effects ofGlobal Warming,” Live Science, 22 December2004, downloaded from www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/041222_permafrost.html, 27 Sep-tember 2005.

7. “Global Warming Fast Facts,” National Geo-graphic News, downloaded fromnews.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming_2.html, 27 Sep-tember 2005.

8. See note 1.

9. Ibid.

10. See notes 1 and 3.

11. See note 1.

12. See notes 1 and 3.

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

14. See note 3.

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

16. Oregon Department of Transportation. Datatransmitted electronically by David Kavanaugh.July 15, 2005.

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

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

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

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

21. See note 19.

22. Ibid.

23. Total global warming emissions of 68.6MMTCO2E from Governor’s Advisory Group onGlobal warming, Oregon Strategy for GreenhouseGas Reductions, Appendix B, December 2004.

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

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

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

27. 2004 sales: Toyota, Toyota Reaches Two Mil-lion in Sales For The First Time in 47-Year His-tory (press release), 4 January 2005; Honda,American Honda Sets New All-Time Sales Record(press release), 4 January 2005; and SteveGeimann, Bloomberg, “Ford Expands Lineup ofGas-Electric Hybrid Vehicles (Update 3),” 9 Janu-ary 2005. 2003 sales: John Porretto, “High FuelPrices Pumping Up Hybrid Sales,” AssociatedPress, 9 May 2004.

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

NOTES


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

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

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

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

33. California Environmental Protection Agency,Air Resources Board, Staff Report: Initial State-ment of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Pub-lic Hearing to Consider Adoption of Regulationsto Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 6 August 2004. Earlier analysis byCARB suggested that even deeper cuts in vehicleemissions could be made more quickly. CARB’sinitial draft proposal for implementation of thestandards called for cost-effective emission reduc-tions of 22 percent from cars and 24 percent fromlight trucks in the near term. Over the mediumterm (2012 to 2014), cost-effective reductions of32 percent for cars and 30 percent for light-truckswere deemed feasible. In addition, the standardswere assumed to be phased in much more quicklythan under CARB’s most recent proposal. SeeCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency, AirResources Board, Draft Staff Proposal Regard-ing the Maximum Feasible and Cost-Effective Re-duction of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Mo-tor Vehicles, 14 June 2004.

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

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

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

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

38. See note 34.

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

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

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

cars and global warming - the public interest...

Documents