ghg/cafe standard impacts on vehicles and …...ghg/cafe standard impacts on vehicles and...

GHG/CAFE Standard Impacts on Vehicles and Technologies

John German, ICCT Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research Institute: Automotive Product Portfolios in the Age of CAFÉ February 13, 2013

The standard provisions

Technology progress

Customers

Vehicle Impacts

Comparison of passenger vehicle GHG standards

US 2025:109 Canada 2025:109

EU 2020: 95

Japan 2020: 105 China 2020: 117

S. Korea 2015: 153

Mexico 2016: 173

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Gra

ms

CO

2 p

er K

ilom

eter

no

rmal

ized

to

NE

DC

US-LDV

Canada-LDV

EU

Japan

China

S. Korea

Australia

Mexico

Solid dots and lines: historical performance Solid dots and dashed lines: enacted targets Solid dots and dotted lines: proposed targets Hollow dots and dotted lines: target under study

[1]$China's$target$reflects$gasoline$vehicles$only.$The$target$may$be$lower$a;er$new$energy$vehicles$are$considered.$$[2]$US$,$Canada,$and$Mexico$lightCduty$vehicles$include$lightCcommercial$vehicles.$

EU 2011: 135

EU 2020: 95

US 2011: 217

US 2025:109 Japan 2010:127

Japan 2020: 105

China 2010: 180

China 2015: 167

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Gra

ms

CO

2 p

er K

ilom

eter

no

rmal

ized

to

NE

DC

EU US-LDV Japan China

[1]$China's$target$reflects$gasoline$fleet$scenario.$If$including$other$fuel$types,$the$target$will$be$lower.$$[2]$US$and$Canada$lightAduty$vehicles$include$lightAcommercial$vehicles.$[3]$Annual$rate$is$calculated$using$baseline$actual$performance$and$target$values.$

China 2020: 117

Annual reduction rate %

4.8%$

4.2%$3.8%$

1.9%$

US$(2011A2025)$

China(2010A2020)$

EU(2011A2020)$

Japan(2010A2020)$

Comparison of passenger vehicle GHG standards

Characteristics of Worldwide Standards

6

Country/ Region

Regulated metric Attribute Form Categories, classes, other provisions

Fuel Economy

Fuel Consumption CO2/GHG Weight Footprint Class Continuous Bins

European Union# X X X Eco-innovations,

super-credits

United States X X X X X 2WD, AC credit, FFV/E85, alternative fuels

Japan X X X Averaging within bins

China X X X X Transmission, per-vehicle limits à corporate average

Canada X X X X AC credits, alternative fuels

South Korea* X X X X Eco-innovations

Mexico X X X X

India X X X

#: CO2 standards complemented by Air-conditioning, tyre pressure monitoring, gear-shift indicators etc.!* : FE/CO2 standards include consideration for tyre pressure monitoring, gear-shift indicators !

2017 and 2025 US Car and Light-Truck Standards

7

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

(gC

O2e

/mile

)

Footprint (Sq. Ft)

2025 Cars

2025 L-T

2017 Cars

2017 L-T

1 Sq. meter = 10.764 Sq. feet

ICCT (2010) Size or Mass? - The Technical Rationale for Selecting Size as an Attribute for Vehicle Efficiency Standards http://www.theicct.org/2010/08/size-or-mass/

A size-based standard fully captures benefits of lightweighting

Slide 8

190

210

230

250

270

1000 1150 1300 1450

GH

G e

mis

sion

rate

(g C

O2/m

i)

Vehicle mass (kg)

Toyota car models (MY2008)

Toyota car average (MY2008)

A mass-indexed standard

Powertrain efficiency (-8% CO2)

Mass-optimized (-8% mass)

Corolla

Camry

Toyota car

average

190

210

230

250

270

40 42 44 46

GH

G e

mis

sio

n r

ate

(g

CO

2/m

i)

Vehicle footprint (ft2)

Toyota car models (MY2008)

Toyota car average (MY2008)

U.S. car 2016 standard

Powertrain efficiency (-8% CO2)

Mass-optimized (-8% mass)

Corolla

Camry

Toyota car

average

§  Mass-based design: –  Efficiency: 11-14 g CO2/km benefit –  Lightweighting: only 2-3 g CO2/km compliance benefit

§  Size-based design: –  Efficiency: 11-14 g CO2/km benefit –  Lightweighting: 7-8 g CO2/km actual benefit

Air Conditioning Credits

§  CO2 credits given based upon the GWP of the air conditioning refrigerant –  Continuous incentive for better refrigerants without

mandates or artificial deadlines –  Allows manufacturers to consider both GWP and

A/C system efficiency when choosing refrigerant

§  CAFE and CO2 credits for improved air conditioning efficiency

Slide 9

Off-Cycle Credits

!

Source: Greenpeace US rule summary, September 6, 2012!

• Starts 2014 for CO2, 2017 for FE!

• OEMs can apply for higher credits than listed and can apply for other off-cycle credits!

• Total off-cycle credits capped at 10 g/mi !

EV, FCV, CNG Credits (CO2 only) §  0 g/miCO2 rating for EVs, PHEVs, FCVs

–  Per-company sales cap of 200,000 to 600,000 applies to MYs 2022-2025

§  Multiple vehicle credits:

§  Credits will be given for vehicles mandated by ZEV §  ICCT supports EV credits, but they should not be

used to weaken the benefits of the standards Slide 11

YearEV/FCV*

multiplilerPHEV/CNG*multiplier

2012816 8 82017 2 1.62018 2 1.62019 2 1.62020 1.75 1.452021 1.5 1.3

2022825 8 8

Pickup Truck Technology Credits §  Pickup trucks performing 15% better than their

applicable CO2 target receive a 10 g/mi credit (0.0011 gal/mi) –  Expires after 2021

§  Those performing 20% better than their target receive a 20 g/mi credit (0.0023 gal/mi) –  Credits continue for 5 years even if FE does not

improve after year qualified §  These are artificial credits that reduce the

benefits of the standards –  Especially a concern due to the lower improvements

required from light trucks Slide 12

2025 Test Cycle Tailpipe Requirements

Does NOT include reclassifying cars as light trucks or making light trucks larger Credits (maximum): •  A/C refrigerant: 13.8 gCO2/mi for cars;16.4 for LDT (No use of AC credits = 54.5 mpg) •  A/C efficiency: 5 g/mi (.000563 gal/mi) for cars; 8 g/mi (.000810 gal/mi) for LDT •  Off-cycle: 10 g/mi (.001125) for cars and LDT •  Pickup: 20 g/mi (.002250) for pickup trucks only •  EV: Zero upstream + multiple credits (assumed 5% market share for cars and 1% for LDT)

163$

184$194$ 196$ 202$

0%$

1%$

2%$

3%$

4%$

5%$

0$

50$

100$

150$

200$

250$

Target$ Plus$A/C$ Plus$off;cycle$ Plus$Pickup$ Plus$EV$

Tailp

ipe'An

nual'%'CO2'redu

c2on

'

Tailp

ipe'gCO2/mile'

54.5$

49.6$ 48.0$45.6$ 45.2$

0%$

1%$

2%$

3%$

4%$

5%$

0$

10$

20$

30$

40$

50$

Target$ w/$refrigerant$ plus$AC$eff$ plus$off;cycle$ plus$pickup$

Tailp

ipe'An

nual'%'M

PG'In

crease'

Tailp

ipe'MPG

'


Technology progress

Customers

Vehicle Impacts

!"#$"%&

'())%)& *+,")-$))$("&

.%+(/0",-$1&/+,#&

2(''$"#&+%)$)3,"1%&

.11%))(+0&

%"%+#0&

4/'$"#&

)3,"/560&

!""#$

%&#$ '#$ !"#$ (#$

78&

4"%+9,'&-,))&

:8&

:8&

;+,<$"#&

:8&

)*+,$-*+,$

!%#$=>%'&

Percents are approximate, based on energy losses for vehicles on the combined U.S. city and highway drive cycles. Sources: Kromer and Heywood, 2007 and U.S. EPA, 2010 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml

Where Does the Energy Go?!!

Slide 15!

§  2008-10 vehicles are generally 15-20% efficient

The Real Technology Breakthrough Computers

•  Computer design, computer simulations, and on-vehicle computer controls are revolutionizing vehicles and powertrains

•  Especially important for lightweight materials •  Optimize hundreds of parts – size and material •  Capture secondary weight – and cost – reductions

•  The high losses in the internal combustion engine are an opportunity for improvement

•  Also reducing size and cost of hybrid system

Improved Cost Analyses - Teardown

17 © by FEV – all rights reserved. Confidential – no passing on to third parties

Phase 2 – Transmission Analysis

41

Gears, Shafts

Housing, Clutches,

Actuation System

FEV – Phase 2 Transmission

Analysis

18

Technology Costs Dropping Technology availability increases - and its costs decrease - over time!

§  Incremental vehicle costs and percent improvements versus MY2008 baseline!§  Data from EPA/NHTSA 2012-2016 rulemaking and EPA/NHTSA/CARB TAR for 2020!

19

Technology Source Benefit Cost

Turbo‐

charging

and

downsizing

(no cyl.

reduc7on)

2001 NRC Report 5‐7% $250‐

$400

DraG RIA – 18 bar 12‐15% $342

DraG RIA – 24 bar 16‐20% $550

DraG RIA – w/

boosted EGR 20‐25% $967

4‐ to 6‐

speed

automa7c

2001 NRC Report 3‐4% $150‐

$300

DraG RIA 3‐4% ($ 15)

Automa7c

to DCT DraG RIA 4‐6%

($154‐

$223)

x 2 efficiency

New technology: x 2 efficiency

again

from cost increase to decrease

New technology: more efficient and

cheaper

§  Cost is direct manufacturing cost §  NRC Report is Effectiveness and lmpact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards, 2002 §  Draft RIA is for NHTSA/EPA proposed standards for 2017-25 light-duty vehicles

Pace of Technology Innovation is Accelerating

2010 2012 2010 Ford Focus Ford Focus

EcoBoost C-class diesel

avg. 1.6L, 4 cyl., 74

kW 1.0L, 3 cyl., 74

kW 1.7L

--- SS+DI+turbo 1,175 kg 1,195 kg

M5, 11.9 s M5, 12.5 s 14.6 km/l 21.4 km/l 17.4 km/l

2010 2012 Audi A3 Audi A3

1.6L, 4 cyl., 75 kW 1.2L, 4 cyl., 77 kW --- SS+DI+turbo+7DCT

1,185 kg 1,150 kg M5, 11.8 s 7DCT, 10.4 s 14.4 km/l 20.1 km/l

GDI Turbo 6-speed Auto 2009 4.2% 3.6% 25% 2010 8.3% 3.5% 38% 2011 13.7% 7.4% 52% 2012 15% 2013 19%

Source: 2009-2011: 2011 EPA Fuel Economy Trends Report Source: 2012-2013: Automotive News, January 14, 2013

New powertrains introduced in Europe +47%

+40%

Pace of Technology Introduction is Accelerating

Honda Prototype Engine Base ( Electro-magnetic valve )

HCCI　Engine

30% Improvement in fuel economy:

Fiat MultiAir Digital Valve Actuation

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

�

Heat release rate

Crank angle [ATDC deg]

dQ/dθ[

J/de

g]

-40 0 -20 40 20

0

10

20 HCCI SI

Requires increasing the self-ignition region

Next-generation Gasoline Engines

Dual-loop high/low pressure cooled exhaust gas recirculation

Turbo-Boosted EGR Engines

Terry Alger, Southwest Research Institute, “Clean and Cool”, Technology Today, Summer 2010

§  Highly dilute combustion – considerable efficiency improvement

§  Advanced ignition systems required

Turbo Dedicated EGR Engines

Terry Alger and Barrett Mangold, SwRI, Dedicated EGR, SAE 2009-01-0694

§  Highly dilute, low temperature combustion

§  Advanced ignition systems required

§  PSA 2017 introduction

Input Powersplit: Planetary Gearing §  Toyota and Ford: Optimizes city efficiency, inexpensive CVT §  Achilles' Heel: Fixed torque split between engine and generator

24

Hybrid TransmissionA hybrid transmission that uses Toyota’s original power split device

Hybrid TransmissionThe hybrid transmission consists of the power split device, the generator, the electric motor and the reduction gears, etc.

The power from the engine is split into two by the power split device. One of the output shafts is connected to the motor and thewheels while the other is connected to the generator. In this way, the motive power from the engine is transmitted through tworoutes, i.e., a mechanical route and an electrical route.

An electronically controlled continuouslyvariable transmission is also provided, which canchange speed while continuously varying the rpmof the engine and the rpm of the generator andthe electric motor (in relation to vehicle speed).

THS II also reduces friction loss by about30% by using ball bearings in the transmissionand low-friction.

Power Split DeviceThe power split device uses a planetary

gear. The rotational shaft of the planetary carrierinside the gear mechanism is directly linked tothe engine, and transmits the motive power tothe outer ring gear and the inner sun gear viapinion gears. The rotational shaft of the ring gearis directly linked to the motor and transmits thedrive force to the wheels, while the rotational shaftof the sun gear is directly linked to the generator.

EngineGenerator Motor

Pinion gear

Planetary gear

Sun gear (generator)

Planetary carrier (engine)

Ring gear(motor/power shaft)

-10-Source: Hybrid Synergy Drive, Toyota Hybrid System II, Toyota Motor Corp., May 2003

•  Two large motors!–  generator must handle part

of engine output!– Motor must handle generator

plus battery output!

•  Cruising efficiency loss!– Part of engine output always

incurs losses in generator and motor!

•  Power recirculation possible!

EngineClutch

Transmission /Transaxle

Electric Motor

§  Advanced P2 hybrid system – not yet in production –  Small, single motor integrated into automated manual transmission

•  Major reductions in cost of hybrid system •  Must be high volume to cover high capitol costs of transmission redesign

–  Reduction in transmission clutch cost, possible use of single-clutch manual transmission

§  New, higher-power Li-ion batteries – smaller, lighter, and lower cost

25 Nissan Fuga/M35 parallel hybrid layout

Future Low-Cost Hybrid

Getrag prototype

!

Lightweight materials offer great potential Material composition of lightweight vehicle body designs:

!"# $!"# %!"# &!"# '!"# (!!"#

RMI Revolution

Lotus (High Development)

Volkswagen /

SuperlightCar

Lotus (Low Development)

Reference

Body composition

Mild steel High strength steels Aluminum Magnesium Plastic/composite

16%

39%

42%

body

weight

reduction

57%

Approximate fuel economy improvement

10%

25%

27%

37%

Also incremental improvements in aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance !

Vehicle Mass-Reduction Cost ($/lb) §  US agencies collaborated to assess available studies and

model costs associated with vehicle mass-reduction –  Agencies assessed and weighted the available mass-reduction studies for redesign of vehicle

models in the 2017-2025 timeframe –  Regulation analyses apply cost-per-pound-reduced vs percent vehicle mass reduction –  Ultimately, agencies projected average vehicle mass would decrease by 8-11% by 2025

27 ‐1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Incremental m

ass reduc.on

cost ($ / lb reduced)

Percent vehicle curb weight reduc.on

Data from research literature (confiden=al industry data not shown)

EPA/NHTSA ($4.33/lb/%)

CARB evalua=on ($2.3/lb/%)

Geck 2007

Lotus 2010

Das 2009

Cheah 2007

Plotkin 2009

Aus=n 2008

EEA 2007

AISI 1998

EEA 2007

Lotus 2010 Das 2010

Das 2008

Das 2008

Bull 2009

NAS 2010

Montalbo 2008

Aus=n 2008

AISI 2001

Major New Mass-Reduction Work!§  Lotus Engineering (CARB)

–  Continuation of 2010 study (-20%, -33% mass Toyota Venza) –  Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation –  Demonstrates cost-effective 30% mass reduction at < $0/vehicle

§  EDAG / Electricore (NHTSA) –  Technical assessment of -22% mass Honda Accord at $319/

vehicle –  Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation

§  EDAG WorldAutoSteel “Future Steel Vehicle” –  12-18% mass reduction, no additional cost, with only using

steels

§  FEV (US EPA) –  Technical assessment of -18% mass Toyota Venza at no cost –  Includes crashworthiness safety (NHTSA FMVSS) validation

28

Vehicle Mass-Reduction Cost

§  FSV and FEV studies indicate 12-18% weight reductions at zero cost

§  EDAG and Lotus studies indicate larger mass reductions at costs on the CARB cost trend line

29 ‐1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Incremental m

ass reduc.on

cost ($ / lb reduced)

Percent vehicle curb weight reduc.on

Data from research literature (confiden=al industry data not shown)

EPA/NHTSA ($4.33/lb/%)

CARB evalua=on ($2.3/lb/%)

Geck 2007

Lotus 2010

Das 2009

Cheah 2007

Plotkin 2009

Aus=n 2008

EEA 2007

AISI 1998

EEA 2007

Lotus 2010 Das 2010

Das 2008

Das 2008

Bull 2009

NAS 2010

Montalbo 2008

Aus=n 2008

AISI 2001

Lotus 2012 EDAG 2012

FEV 2012 FSV 2012

CONFIDENTIAL, PRELIMINARY


Technology progress

Customers

Vehicle Impacts

Turrentine & Kurani, 2004

§  Out of 60 households (125 vehicle transactions) 9 stated that they compared the fuel economy of vehicles in making their choice.

§  4 households knew their annual fuel costs.

§  None had made any kind of quantitative assessment of the value of fuel savings.

In-depth interviews of 60 California households’ vehicle acquisition histories found no evidence of economically rational decision-making about fuel economy.

•  Uncertainty about future fuel savings makes paying for more technology a risky bet -  What MPG will I get (your mileage may vary)? -  How long will my car last? -  How much driving will I do? -  What will gasoline cost? -  What will I give up or pay to get better MPG?

Consumers are, in general, LOSS AVERSE

Causes the market to produce less fuel economy than is economically efficient

2002 Nobel Prize for Economics (Tversky & Kahnemann, J. Risk & Uncertainty 1992

“A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.”!

Innovator

Early Adopter

Early Majority Majority

Hanger- On

New Customer Profile

Increasingly risk averse


Technology progress

Customers

Vehicle Impacts


35

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

Gre

enho

use

Gas

Em

issi

ons

(gC

O2e

/mile

)

Footprint (Sq. Ft)

2025 Cars

2025 L-T

2017 Cars

2017 L-T

1 Sq. meter = 10.764 Sq. feet

Footprint Standards do not Impact Size

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson and the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, on August 28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Page 50 of 1230

EPA and NHTSA received a number of comments about the shape of the car and truck curves. Some commenters, including Honda, Toyota and Volkswagen, stated that the light truck curve was too lenient for large trucks, while Nissan and Honda stated the light truck curve was too stringent for small trucks; Porsche and Volkswagen stated the car curve was too stringent generally, and Toyota stated it was too stringent for small cars. A number of NGOs (Center for Biological Diversity, International Council on Clean Transportation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists) also commented on the truck curves as well as the relationship between the car and truck curves. We address all these comments further in Section II.C as well as in Sections III and IV.

Generally speaking, a smaller footprint vehicle will tend to have higher fuel economy and lower CO2 emissions relative to a larger footprint vehicle when both have a comparable level of fuel efficiency improvement technology. Since the finalized standards apply to a manufacturer’s overall passenger car fleet and overall light truck fleet, not to an individual vehicle, if one of a manufacturer’s fleets is dominated by small footprint vehicles, then that fleet will have a higher fuel economy requirement and a lower CO2 requirement than a manufacturer whose fleet is dominated by large footprint vehicles. Compared to the non-attribute based CAFE standards in place prior to MY 2011, the final standards more evenly distribute the compliance burdens of the standards among different manufacturers, based on their respective product offerings. With this footprint-based standard approach, EPA and NHTSA continue to believe that the rules will not create significant incentives to produce vehicles of particular sizes, and thus there should be no significant effect on the relative availability of different vehicle sizes in the fleet due to these standards, which will help to maintain consumer choice during the MY 2017 to MY 2025 rulemaking timeframe. Consumers should still be able to purchase the size of vehicle that meets their needs. Table I-6 helps to illustrate the varying CO2 emissions and fuel economy targets under the final standards that different vehicle sizes will have, although we emphasize again that these targets are not actual standards – the standards are manufacturer-specific, rather than vehicle-specific.

Table I-6 Model Year 2025 CO2 and Fuel Economy Targets for Various MY 2012 Vehicle Types

Vehicle Type

Example Models

Example Model Footprint

(sq. ft.)

CO2 Emissions Target (g/mi)a

Fuel Economy Target (mpg)b

Example Passenger Cars Compact car Honda Fit 40 131 61.1

Midsize car Ford Fusion 46 147 54.9

Full size Chrysler 300 53 170 48.0

Slide 36

This document is a prepublication version, signed by the EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson and the Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, on August 28, 2012. We have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version.

Page 51 of 1230

car Example Light-duty Trucks

Small SUV 4WD Ford Escape 43 170 47.5

Midsize crossover Nissan Murano 49 188 43.4

Minivan Toyota Sienna 56 209 39.2

Large pickup truck

Chevy Silverado

(extended cab, 6.5 foot bed)

67 252 33.0

a, b Real-world CO2 is typically 25 percent higher and real-world fuel economy is typically 20 percent lower than the CO2 and fuel economy target values presented here.

4. Program Flexibilities for Achieving Compliance

a. CO2/CAFE Credits Generated Based on Fleet Average Over-Compliance

As proposed, the agencies are finalizing several provisions which provide compliance flexibility to manufacturers to meet the standards. Many of the provisions are also found in the MYs 2012-2016 rules. For example, the agencies are continuing to allow manufacturers to generate credits for over-compliance with the CO2 and CAFE standards.77 As noted above, under the footprint-based standards, a manufacturer’s ultimate compliance obligations are determined at the end of each model year, when production of vehicles for that model year is complete. Since the fleet average standards that apply to a manufacturer’s car and truck fleets are based on the applicable footprint-based curves, a production volume-weighted fleet average requirement will be calculated for each averaging set (cars and trucks) based on the mix and volumes of the models manufactured for sale by the manufacturer. If a manufacturer’s car and/or truck fleet achieves a fleet average CO2/CAFE level better than its car and/or truck standards, then the manufacturer generates credits. Conversely, if the fleet average CO2/CAFE level does not meet the standard, the fleet would incur debits (also referred to as a shortfall). As in the MY 2011 CAFE program under EPCA/EISA, and also in MYs 2012-2016 for the light-duty vehicle GHG and CAFE program, a manufacturer whose fleet generates credits in a given model year would have several options for using those credits, including credit carry-back, credit carry-forward, credit transfers, and credit trading.

Credit “carry-back” means that manufacturers are able to use credits to offset a deficit that had accrued in a prior model year, while credit “carry-forward” means that manufacturers can bank credits and use them toward compliance in future model years. EPCA, as amended by EISA, requires NHTSA to allow manufacturers to carry back credits for up to three model years,

77 This credit flexibility is required by EPCA/EISA, see 49 U.S.C. 32903, and is well within EPA’s discretion under section 202 (a) of the CAA.

37 1 Sq. meter = 10.764 Sq. feet

2016 US Car and Light-Truck Standard Increase

0.0%$

1.0%$

2.0%$

3.0%$

4.0%$

5.0%$

36$ 38$ 40$ 42$ 44$ 46$ 48$ 50$ 52$ 54$ 56$ 58$ 60$ 62$ 64$ 66$ 68$ 70$ 72$ 74$Footprint((sq.(-.)(

Annual(%(increase(

LDT$0$2012$to$2016$

Car$0$2012$to$2016$

38 1 Sq. meter = 10.764 Sq. feet

0.0%$

0.5%$

1.0%$

1.5%$

2.0%$

2.5%$

3.0%$

3.5%$

4.0%$

4.5%$

5.0%$

36$ 38$ 40$ 42$ 44$ 46$ 48$ 50$ 52$ 54$ 56$ 58$ 60$ 62$ 64$ 66$ 68$ 70$ 72$ 74$Footprint((sq.(-.)(

Annual(%(increase(

LDT$0$2012$to$2016$

Car$0$2012$to$2016$

LDT$0$2016$to$2021$

Car$0$2016$to$2021$$


$0.00

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Real Gasoline Prices (2011 $ per gallon)

$3.57 $3.94

Real Gasoline Price

Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average, adjusted using CPI-U

AEO2013 early release

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 2035

New Vehicle MPG (CAFE values) Combined car and light truck

Car + Light Truck mpg

New Vehicle Fuel Economy

2012 – 2025 NHTSA CAFE standards 2026 – 2035 +4% per year

From 2011 EPA FE Trends Report

New Vehicle Gasoline Cost per Mile

$3.71/gal

$0.00

$0.02

$0.04

$0.06

$0.08

$0.10

$0.12

$0.14

$0.16

$0.18

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Real Gasoline Cost for New Vehicles - Cents per Mile (2011%$%per%gallon)%

$3.94

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

% o

f Per

Cap

ita D

ispo

sabl

e In

com

e

Real Fuel Cost of Driving a New Vehicle 10,000 Miles % of Per Capita Disposable Income

Real Fuel Cost - % of Disposable Income

$3.94/gal

$7.50/gal

$14/gal

BEA, Table 2.1, Personal Income and It's Disposition Forecasted Per Capita Disposable Income from AEO2013 Early Release

Summary •  Standards needed due to consumer “loss aversion” •  Improvements in conventional powertrains and load

reduction will be far greater than expected •  Only modest number of hybrids – and no xEVs – needed •  P2 hybrid cost will be accepted by the mass market ~2022

•  Standards will have no impact on vehicle sales •  Fuel savings will be larger than increased car payment

•  Future vehicles may increase in size •  Footprint system provides no incentive to downsize •  Differential changes to the light truck footprint curve

increase the incentive to reclassify cars as trucks and to make light trucks larger

•  Fuel share of disposable income will decrease

Thank You

!!!Thank You!

ghg/cafe standard impacts on vehicles and …...ghg/cafe standard impacts on vehicles and...

Documents