# Presentation: 672033

## Analysis of “Real-World” Emissions

***March 10, 1999***

**by**

**Analysis of “Real-World” Emissions**
**from In-Use Vehicles**

## Why Regulatory Focus is Now on Emissions of In-Use, Rather than New, Vehicles

**new car emission standards are 90 to 95 percent less than emissions from pre-control cars (and even less as standards continue to be tightened) ...**
**... ****but vehicle miles traveled has doubled over the same time period, so overall emissions have been reduced by much less ...**
**and “unregulated” sources of emissions now dominate overall emissions**
**malfunctioning or failed emissions controls**
**“****off-cycle” emissions occuring at speeds and accelerations greater than in the FTP (manufacturers design engine calibrations that run fuel rich under high accelerations); these emissions to be addressed in Supplemental FTP, effective in 2002**

## Slide 3

## Slide 4

## EPA Project at LBNL

**Collect and analyze state I/M data (emphasis on IM240 test data)**
**Interagency Agreement with EPA’s Office of Mobile Sources, Assessment and Modeling Division (maintains emission inventory model, MOBILE)**
**Small budget: $110k per year**
**PI: Bob Sawyer, UCBerkeley (additional guidance from Marc Ross, UMichigan)**

## State I/M Data at LBNL

**IM240 data**
**Arizona****	****	****Jan 95 to Dec 97**
**Colorado****	****	****Jan 95 to Dec 97**
**Wisconsin****	****	****July 96 to June 97**
**Idle test data**
**Arizona****	****	****Jan 95 to Dec 97**
**Colorado****	****	****Jan 95 to Dec 97 **
**Minnesota****	****	****July 91 to Dec 95**
**Remote sensing data**
**Arizona****	****	****Jan 96 to Aug 97**

## Ongoing Analyses of In-Use Emissions Data

**Analyze seasonal effects (ambient temperature, fuel composition) on in-use emissions**
**Evaluate effectiveness of Enhanced I/M programs**
**Compare average emissions by vehicle make and model**
**Other analyses:**
**emissions deterioration by vehicle mileage, by model year**
**using remote sensing to exempt low-emitters from I/M testing (vs. exemptions by model year)**
**classification of different types of high-emitters, and their distribution in the in-use fleet (included in UCRiverside CMEM model)**

## Analyze Seasonal Effects (Ambient Temperature and Fuel Composition) on Emissions

**In oxyfuel states (Arizona and Colorado), CO and HC are lower in winter than summer**
**Winter CO and HC emissions in Colorado comparable to those in Arizona, even though Colorado has much lower temperatures**
**In reformulated gasoline state (Wisconsin), CO and HC are lower overall, with less seasonal variation (some of this due to newer vehicle fleet in Wisconsin)**
**NOx trends similar in all three states, with higher NOx in winter**
**NOx is noticeably higher in warmer Arizona than colder Colorado and Wisconsin**

## Daily Average CO (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average CO (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1995-97 Arizona IM240*

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

**Day**

**Average CO (adjusted)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1995

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

## 14

- 16

**Day**

**Average CO (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- non-oxyfuel

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- 1995

- non-oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

## Daily Average CO, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average CO, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1996-97 Wisconsin IM240*

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

**Day**

**Average CO (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1996

- 1997

- 1995

## Daily Average NOx (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average NOx (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1995-97 Arizona IM240*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 1.8

**Day**

**Average NOx (adjusted)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1995

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

## 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 1.8

**Day**

**Average NOx (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- non-oxyfuel

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- 1995

- non-oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

## Daily Average NOx, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average NOx, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1996-97 Wisconsin IM240*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 1.8

**Day**

**Average NOx (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1996

- 1997

- 1995

## Evaluate Effectiveness of Enhanced I/M Programs

**Initial CO emissions reductions from Arizona IM240 program are comparable to those predicted by MOBILE5; MOBILE5 slightly overpredicts initial reductions in HC, and dramatically overpredicts initial reductions in NOx**
**Remote sensing data show initial emission reductions comparable to IM240 data**
**However, I/M repairs are not durable: 40% of vehicles that fail initial test but pass final test (most of which are repaired) fail their initial test 2 years later**
**Large numbers of vehicles are escaping the program: 30% of vehicles that fail initial I/M test never receive a passing I/M test **
**Remote sensing data indicate that 30% of these “no final pass” vehicles are still being driven in the I/M area one year after their final I/M test**

## IM240 Fleet Emission Reductions Comparedto MOBILE5 Prediction

## Compare Average Emissions by Vehicle Year, Make and Model

**Wide range in average emissions by vehicle make and model**
**Results consistent across different state I/M programs, with different cutpoints, test procedures, and environmental conditions**
**Possible uses of average emissions by vehicle model**
**identify likely low-emitters for exemption from I/M testing requirements (or high-emitters for more frequent testing**
** ****target models for more extensive testing under existing recall programs**
**identify model-specific emissions problems and repairs for repair industry**
**identify design/manufacturing flaws for manufacturers **
**publish data in consumer magazines (i.e. Consumers Reports) to influence used car purchases**

## 1996 Average CO gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240

**1996 Average CO gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240**

*MY92 Car Models (with at least 100 individual cars)*

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

- 16

**Arizona Average CO and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

**Colorado Average CO and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

- Saturn MFI

- GM E (5.0L)

- GM T (3.1L)

- GM D (2.3L)

- GM 4 (2.2L)

- Chrys K (2.5L)

- Saturn TBI

- Chrys D (2.2L)

- GM 7 (5.7L)

- Toyota Celica 2.2L

- Lexus LS/SC400

- Lexus ES300

- Toyota Camry

- Toyota Camry V6

- GM 3 (2.3L)

## 1996 Average HC gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240

**1996 Average HC gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240**

*MY92 Car Models (with at least 100 individual cars)*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

**Arizona Average HC and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

**Colorado Average HC and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

- Saturn MFI

- GM P (5.7L)

- GM 7 (5.7L)

- GM E (5.0L)

- GM T (3.1L)

- Hyundai Excel

- Toyota Celica 2.2L

- Lexus LS/SC400

- Toyota Camry

## 1996 Average NOx gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240

**1996 Average NOx gpm, Arizona v. Colorado IM240**

*MY92 Car Models (with at least 100 individual cars)*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 1.8

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

- 1.2

- 1.4

- 1.6

- 1.8

**Arizona Average NOx and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

**Colorado Average NOx and Standard Error (adjusted gpm)**

- Chrys K (2.5L)

- Lexus LS/SC400

- Nissan Maxima

- Acura Legend 3.2L

- Mazda 626/MX6

- Saturn TBI

- Honda Civic 102hp

- GM L (3.8L)

- GM B (4.9L)

- Ford E (5.0L)

- GM X (3.4L)

## Future Research	

**Collect more data**
**more years of data from Arizona, Colorado, and Wisconsin**
**IM240/idle data from Ohio**
**ASM data from California, Maryland**
**Future analyses**
**why do vehicles repeatedly fail I/M?  Insufficient repair or malfunction of other components?**
**I/M evaluation over multiple years, in different states**
**are new technology Tier 1 vehicles more durable than older vehicles?**
**are average emissions by vehicle model consistent across different I/M programs?**

## Daily Average HC (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average HC (adjusted), Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1995-97 Arizona IM240*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

**Day**

**Average HC (adjusted)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1995

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

## Average HC (adjusted gpm)

**Average HC (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- non-oxyfuel

- 1996

- 1997

- oxyfuel

- 1995

- non-oxyfuel

- non-oxyfuel

- oxyfuel

## Daily Average HC, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars

**Daily Average HC, Initial Tests of Passenger Cars**

*1996-97 Wisconsin IM240*

- 0.0

- 0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

- 1.0

**Day**

**Average HC (adjusted gpm)**

- 0

- 20

- 40

- 60

- 80

- 100

- 120

- 140

**Maximum Temperature (Farenheit)**

- 1996

- 1997

- 1995