Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
California’s Advanced Clean Cars
Midterm Review
March 24, 2017
Advanced Clean Cars Approved as an integrated regulatory package in 2012 LEV III Criteria and GHG Standards 75% reduction in fleet average
NMOG + NOx emissions 90% reduction in PM emission
standard 34% reduction in GHG emissions
ZEV More ZEVs and PHEVs
LEV Criteria Air Quality
Improvements
LEV GHG
Greenhouse Gas Reductions
ZEV Technology
Advancement
1
Meeting long term emissions targets
n Climate Goals
Air Quality Standards
2015
LEV III – Criteria and GHG: Improving Conventional
Vehicle Technology
2020
2020 GHG Emissio
Target
2025
Ozone and PM2.5
Attainment
ZEV Program: Accelerating Advanced
Technology Development
2030
2030 GHG Emission
Target
75 ppb 8-hr Ozone Attainment
2
2035
70 ppb 8-hr Ozone Attainment
2040 2045 2050
2050 GHG Emission
Target
Advanced Clean Cars Midterm Review and the Federal Process
3
LEV Criteria Air Quality
Improvements
LEV GHG
Greenhouse Gas
Reductions
ZEV Technology
Advancement
Midterm Evaluation of One National
Program
Inter-agency Coordination on MidterEvaluation of One National Program
m LEV GHG
2012 January:
ACC 2017-2025 standards
er: Federal 2017-2025 GHG standards
ber: CA GHG “deemed to comply” adopted
Octob
Novem
2013-2016 External Research, Survey and Analysis,In-House Testing Inter-agency coordination
2016
July: Joint Technical Assessment Report (TAR)
September: ACC Symposium
2017 January:
EPA Final Determination MTR Report
ch: Announced Reconsideration of Final
Mar
Determination
4
LEVCriteria
Air QualityImprovements
ZEV
LEVGHG
GreenhouseGas ReductionsCA only
Light-duty GHG Standards
Technology Advancement
Model Year
500 )
mi 450
e/ 2 400
COg ( 350
dsr 300
nda
at
250
Sn 200
oissi 150
m 100
G E
GH 50
0
Passenger Car Combined light-duty Light Truck
First National Program
Subsequent National Program
Midterm Review: Focus on the
MY2022 - 2025 Federal GHG
standards
5
Manufacturers are over-complying with current GHG standards
Actual Compliance Standard 310
e l 300
mi
/ 290
ms
ar
280
gt n
270
ale 260
viuq 250
e- 2 240
CO 230 220
US CA US CA US CA US CA MY2012 MY2013 MY2014 MY2015
LEV GHG
Standards calculated based on sales from the six large volume manufacturers subject to CA GHG regulations for MY 2012-2015 including credits. 6
Technology has evolved rapidly to meet the standards
LEV GHG
Advanced engines and transmissions
Vehicle light-weighting Improved aerodynamics Low rolling resistance tires Stop-start and advanced
stop-start (e.g., 48 V olt) technology
~21% of the 2016 fleet already
complies with 2020 standards
7
Future standards can be met with conventional technology at reduced cost
LEVGHG
Strong Plug-in Hybrid
2016 Proposed
Costs in 2015$ Proposed Determination costs represent most recent analysis, using newer data and assumptions than used for the draft TAR
8
Advanced Gasoline 75%
Hybrid 2% Electric Vehicles
Gasoline Vehicles 2% w/Adv. 3%
Stop-Start 18%
Incremental vehicle costs to meet 2025 stds
2012 EPA Rulemaking
$1,163 Determination
$875
California on target for fleet GHG reductions 300
) ile 280
m/g 260
( t e 240 gra T 220
nis
sio 200
mE 180
2 160
CO
140
153 to 164 g/mi in 2025
2012 Sc enario 2016 U pdated Scenario
LEV GHG
Even with increasing sale of trucks,
California is still on track to meet targeted
GHG reductions
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Model Year
9
Issues Raised by Industry Industry: Analysis overestimates efficiency/underestimates needed
LEV GHG
technology • More technology required, including stronger electrification, which means
higher costs • Consumer acceptance/demand, especially of stronger electrification, is
inadequate CARB Response: Data well grounded in actual testing and analysis concluded higher levels of technology are not needed
• Alternative technology evaluations confirmed strong electrification not needed
• Electrified sales in CA already near levels projected for 2025
10
Staff Recommendation LEV GHG
Review Question: Are the model year 2022 - 2025 Federal GHG standards appropriate?
Recommendation: Yes, analysis affirmed current federal standards are appropriate, and CARB recommends continued participation in the National Program through 2025, provided no future changes weaken expected benefits in California.
11
Continue monitoring other activities
• Reconsideration of federal re-opening of Final Determination
• Canada’s midterm review • Global activities
12
Analysis of National Fleet LEV
GHG
MY2025 nationwide fleet target 180
e 175
l/m
i
170
2 CO 165
g 160
155
Larger fraction of truck sales projected in 2025 results in
a higher fleet CO2 target.
175
163 175 g/ mi $875
2012 US EPA 2016 Draft TAR Rulemaking
2025 Fleet Incremental Average Vehicle Costs
163 g/ mi ~$1,375
13
Technology
1 mg/mi Particulate Matter (PM) Standard
Advancement
Model Year
12
) i 10 m/gm 8 (
s no 6
ssi
im 4
EM
P 2
0
LEV II LEV III
LEV LEV Criteria FleeGHt PhasGe -in
100%
Greenhouse Air Quality Gas Reductions Improvements 100%
3 mg/mi 0%
ZEV 0% 1 mg/mi
Midterm Review: Is it feasible as scheduled for MY2025? Midterm Review:
Is it measurable?
14
PM Measurement Evaluation Staff Recommendation
Review Question: Can we accurately measure PM emissions at 1 mg/mi?
LEV Criteria
Recommendation: Yes, as reported to Board in 2015, mass-based measurement method is accurate and most appropriate
15
Some vehicles already meeting future PM standards
• Many already meeting 3 mg/mi
• Further refinement needed for many to meet 1 mg/mi
9
8 Average PM Mass Results
P T F) 7
/mi
6 2017+ 2025+
mg
5 Standard Standard
ss (
aM 4
M
Pe 3
gare 2
vA1
0
LEV Criteria
16
Combustion technology evolving to meet 1 mg/mi standard
LEV Criteria
Focus on fuel injection system and combustion chamber design
Standard Spray Optimized Spray
17
Gasoline particle filters provide additional technology path
• Prototype catalyzed GPFs tested • Can control PM levels below 1 mg/mi on FTP • Limited use worldwide
PM Removal Efficiencies FTP US06
F-150 88% 72%
Malibu 88% 54%
LEVCriteria
PM with and Without GPF
) 8 7
/mi
7
mg 5.5
6
ss (
a 5
M Without GPF
M 4
P With GPF
PT 3
Feg 2
ar 0.6
e 0.8
v 1
A
0 2016 CHEVY MALIBU 2015 FORD F150
18
Real-world PM control varies
More aggressive driving can result in higher emissions
LEV Criteria
P 5.0
FT) 4.5 Average PM Mass Results
im/ 4.0 Standard Test Cycle
g 3.5
m( More Aggressive Driving
s
3.0 2.5
sa
M 2.0 M
1.5
e P 1.0
gar 0.5
ev 0.0
A
19
PM Staff Recommendations
Review Question: Is the 1 mg/mi standard feasible by 2025?
LEV Criteria
Recommendation: Yes, the standard is feasible and the current implementation schedule maintains necessary lead time to refine engine and injection system designs
Additional R ecommendation: Develop additional PM standards, to
supplement the 1 mg/mi standard, to better ensure robust PM control in real world driving conditions 20
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Regulation Midterm Review: Are the ZEV requirements in California appropriate for continuing to help develop the ZEV market?
Midterm Review: Are the ZEV requirements in Section 177 ZEV states appropriate for continuing to help develop the ZEV market?
Midterm Review: How should PHEVs be treated in the ZEV regulation?
250,000 Projected 15% ZEV+PHEV
Sales in 2025
s 200,000
EVH
New ZEV
P +
requirements 150,000
s adopted in 2012 Projected ZEVs
EVZal
100,000 unnA 50,000 Projected Plug-in Hybrids
0
Model Year 21
A growing ZEV market ZEV
CA + Section 177 N ew Sales 100,000
PHEV 90,000
ZEV 80,000
s 70,000 ela 60,000 Sl nn
ua
50,000
40,000
A 30,000
20,000
10,000
0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Calendar Year
Today’s Model Offerings
10 PHEV 12 BEV
Initial Model Offerings
1 BEVx 3 FCEV
22
Manufacturers are over-complying California
Total Credits Required
ZEV
350,000
300,000
250,000
s t 200,000
dieCr 150,000
100,000
50,000
0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
roj) Model Year (proj) (p
Section 177 States
Total Credits Required
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Model Year (proj) (proj) 23
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201Model Year 24
Credit banks provide insuranceagainst future requirements
ment (CA+S177) 1,200,000
1,000,000
800,000
s tdie 600,000
Cr
400,000
200,000
0
Total Credit RequireTotal Credits Earned Total Credits Projected
Credits earned for MY 2015 salunder MY 2018+ program
es
7 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
ZEV
Updated ZEV Compliance Scenarios ZEV CA + S177 ZEV State Volumes
4,500,000
4,000,000
Vs
E 3,500,000
HP +
3,000,000
sVE 2,500,000
Zevi 2,000,000
lat
u 1,500,000
muC 1,000,000
500,000
0 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Model Year
Updates reflect: Increased electric range on
BEVs and PHEVs Use of regulatory flexibilities Use of banked ZEV credits Misc. other updates
(e.g., total new vehicle sales)
25
OEMs appear committed to electrification
ZEV
26
ZEV Technology costs falling fast
Fuel cell system costs have fallen 57% from 2006 to 2015
Battery cost73% from 2
s have fallen 06 to 2015 0
Neither FCEV nor BEV cost parity anticipated with conventional gasoline technology by 2025
27
Consumers still need more all-electric range
ZEV
“Range is the most important feature to
customers buying EVs, and we know that consideration
increases significantly as range goes up.”
My PEV does not travel far enough before needing to be charged.
100% Strongly Agree Agree
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
PHEV BEV<200 BEV200+ Source: 2016 CVRP Ownership Survey
– Pam Fletcher, General Motors Executive Chief Engineer
28
Electric Range (EPA Label) 29
Current and Future ZEV/TZEV Models by MY Year = PHEV Model = BEV Model = BEVx Model = FCEV Model
p u ck
ck ur
Pi T n
Va
MY 2MY 2MY 2MY 2MY 2MY 2MY 2001000001111116481532- - 1271 s s dr
la and UV
CSatS
e z llUV
ai
A S m
KEY
SS
P
1 ge r E ra Ca
2
L e
3
z i r S-id Ca
4
M ll r
5+
am CaS
Multiple Makes 0% 10 -20 5% 20 - 30 10%30 -40 15% 40 -100 20%100 -150 25% 150 -200 30% 200 -250 35% 250 -300 40% 300 -400
US Market Share (MY2015)
Section 177 State Flexibilities ZEV
• CA BEVs allowed to “travel” to S177 states through MY2017, creating credit banks for compliance
• Reduced requirements for PHEVs and BEVs through MY2020
• Allowed if a few BEVs are delivered prior to 2018 • Pooling amongst states through MY2021 for
compliance credits 30
Intermediate Volume Manufacturers (IVMs) can comply ZEV
• 2014: Board adopted flexibilities to ease requirements for IVMs • 2017: All IVMs (Mazda, Subaru, Jaguar Land Rover, and Volvo) have
announced electrified products (BEVs and PHEVs) to be released by MY2020
The overall industry is now shifting its electrification focus toward EVs. We are in the age where we cannot just go on launching EVs only as regulation compliance cars.
-Yasuyuki Yoshinaga, CEO, Fuji Heavy Industries (which owns Subaru)
31
Sunsetting policies ZEV
2017
BEV travel provision
expires
Federal tax credit projected to phase out for some OEMs
2018
HOV lane incentive expires
2019 2020 2021 Optional compliance path
and overcompliance provisions expire
2022
ZEV multipliersexpire in GHG program
2023
AB 8 funding expires
2024 2025
ZEV upstream emission exemption expires in GHG program
Further costs reductions needed 200-mile BEV: 40-mile PHEV:
$13,000+ $10,000+ incremental cost incremental cost Estimated MY2025 costs relative to MY2016 conventional ICE vehicle
32
2018-2025 ZEV Requirements
Staff Recommendation ZEV
Review Question: Is the ZEV regulation appropriate as adopted for model year 2018 through 2025?
Recommendation: Yes. Maintain the current ZEV stringency through model year 2025 including the existing regulatory and credit structure in California, the Section 177 States, and for IVMs.
33
Plug-In vehicles and eVMT ZEV
Board direction • How are plug-in vehicles
used? • Are they credited
appropriately? • What are the criteria
pollutant impacts? • What are the greenhouse
gas impacts?
Data collected from 8 OEMs
Over 90,000 vehicles
11 different models
Over 20 million miles of trip-level data
34
Credits are consistent with usage
4.0
Aver
age
Annu
al M
iles
(Bar
s)
25,000
20,000
eVMT (miles) Gasoline Miles Credits
3.0
2.5 15,000
2.0
10,000 1.5
1.0 5,000
0.5
0 0.0 Toyota Honda Ford C-Max Ford Chevrolet BMW i3 BMW i3 Ford Focus Honda Fit Nissan Tesla Prius Accord Energi Fusion Volt (PHEV) (BEVx) (BEV) Electric (BEV) Leaf (BEV) Model S
(PHEV) (PHEV) (PHEV) Energi (BEV) (BEV) (PHEV) Vehicles Analyzed
3.5
Tota
l ZEV
Cre
dits
Ear
ned
per V
eh (
Line
)
ZEV
35
Criteria Pollutant Considerations
for PHEVs ZEV
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
Official Emission
Test (FTP)
Accel 1 Accel 2 Accel 3 Accel 4 Accel 5 Accel 6
Gram
s (N
MO
G+N
Ox)
Fusion Energi Prius Plug-In Sonata Plug-In Hybrid • Testing found some real world engine starts can have significant emissions • 2-5x higher
• Vehicle technology improvements are needed to minimize emissions
36
PHEV eVMT usage depends on consumer behavior
ZEV
“My main purpose for purchasing it was the HOVsticker. I'm very happy with the car, but I don'tcharge it very often. If it got more mileage off acharge, I would charge it more.”
-2013 Ford C-MAX Driver
“Love the car, more Level 2 destination chargers andability to charge at home without pushing into thehighest rate tiers are my biggest issues. Currentlythe price of gas is less than comparable chargingcost (break even around $3-4/gal) so I don't charge much right now.”
-2013 Toyota Prius Plug-in Driver Source: 2016 CVRP Ownership Survey, open-ended final comments
37
PHEV GHG emissions can be highly variable
+15 to 60% GHG increase if much larger PHEV sales
±8% in GHG emissions based on driver habits
High PHEV Sales + Low eVMT
High PHEV Sales + High eVMT
Low eVMT
High eVMT
) 12
e2CO 10
mt
m( 8
s nios 6
ismE
G 4
H G 2
inegan 0
hC
-2 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
ZEV
38
PHEVs Role and Usage Staff Recommendation
ZEV
Review Question: Are PHEVs credited and treated appropriately in the ZEV regulation?
Recommendation: Yes. Maintain existing credit structure and credit caps for PHEVs through MY 2025
39
ZEV: Stakeholder Concerns ZEV
• Section 177 Dealers: concerned OEMs will require them to take delivery of more ZEVs than they can readily sell
• Auto Industry: concerned about PHEV credits, S177 state markets, support for complementary policies
40
Alternatives for increased ZEV stringency
ZEV
MY 2022 through 2025: • Increase stringency with focus on pure ZEVs
(BEVs, FCEVs) • Require PHEVs with greater all-electric
functionality • Add credit usage restrictions
41
New complementary policy actions needed to accelerate ZEV Market ZEV
Challenge Complementary Policy
Low consumer awareness
• New consumer education campaigns • VW Appendix C: ZEV awareness campaign
Shortage of fueling infrastructure
• SB 350: Electric utility investments • VW Appendix C: Electric infrastructure
investments • Hydrogen grants for traditional energy firms
42
2026 and beyond
Evolution of the light-duty vehicle
emission program
43
Need large emission reductions beyond current programs
NOx, South Coast, All Sources
)
600
ya d
s pe
r 500 Current Programs
no 400
t (snoi 300
ssm
i 200
x E 2023 South Coast Target
ON 100
2031 South Coast Target 0 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
GHGs, Statewide LDV & HDV 200
) Current Programs
yr 180
E/ 2 160
OC 140
mm
t
120
s ( SB 32 40%
n 100
oi Reduction
ss 80
mi
E
60
G Exec Order 40
GH 80% Reduction 20
0 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
44
Mobile Source Strategy & Scoping Plan Re-affirm Need for ZEVs & Clean Cars
By 2050, 100% sales of ZEVs and PHEVs
FCEV
BEV
PHEV ICE+HEVs By 2030, 4M to 4.5M
ZEVs and PHEVs on the road
40
elc 35i ) he ns 30
d V oilla i 25
o Mr-n n (
o 20
O ie atd 15i ul
ew pot 10
PatS 5
-2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
Calendar Year 45
Tracking published literature for 2026 and Beyond
American Lung Association (Oct 2016) • Large public health and climate benefits from ZEV fleet expansion
Environmental Defense Fund (Feb 2017) • Feasibility of 10-90 gCO2/mi reductions between 2025 and 2030
International Council on Clean Transportation (Mar 2017) • Feasibility of 4%-6% annual reductions in GHG emissions by 2030
Indiana University (Mar 2017) • Combined GHG and ZEV regulations can have long-run positive
economic impacts 46
2026 and beyond: Thinking “Outside the Box”
Early considerations: • Should fuels be addressed in the regulations?
Broader considerations: • What is best structure of GHG and criteria emission stds to
accelerate necessary technologies like ZEVs? • Should vehicle regulations include elements for new
transportation systems? • Should the ZEV regulation be expanded to include heavier
vehicles? 47
2026 and beyond: Guiding Principals and Approach
• Maximize emission reductions long-term cost effectively • Maintain tech forcing requirements as long as barriers exist • Learn from other jurisdictions, including Europe & Asia • Consider transition from current rule to new rule • Leverage partnerships • Board proposal within 3-4 years for model year 2026 start
48
Midterm Review Recommendations Summary
• Adopted MY 2022-2025 GHG standards remainappropriate
• PM standard is feasible but further action needed to ensure robust control
• Continue with existing technology-forcing ZEVrequirements to develop the market
• Direct staff to immediately begin rule development for MY 2026 and beyond
49