HD Truck Fuel Economy Task Group

Key Issues for Phase 2 of EPA/NHTSA Rule

Bill Van Amburg, CALSTART

Leadership Circle

Auburn Hills, MI 

June 5, 2013
HD Truck Fuel Economy Task Group

Goals:

» In advance of rule development, discuss key issues 

for industry and users

» Make sure beneficial fuel saving technology 

included in rule design

» Seek areas of agreement; identify key areas of 

concern

» Work collaboratively to develop recommendations

» Provide feedback to regulators

2
HDV FE Phase 2 Aims at Vocational 

» Slow ramp up of rule left a lot of achievable 

reductions off the table, especially in 

vocational trucks

» Unintended outcome of possibly slowing 

deployment of more advanced technology

» Second phase of rule will be aimed at 

vocational vehicles
Phase 1 Rule Flexibility Helps – But 

May Not be Needed by OEMs

» Rule so far 

being easily 

met, many 

OEs precertifying 

vehicles

» May not need 

credits until 

perhaps 2017 
Phase 2 Commitments in Phase 1 Rule

» Focus on energy security and environmental goals

» Preserve industry’s ability to meet market needs with a diverse range of 

vehicles

» Continue our collaborative outreach with stakeholders

» Set more stringent standards based on forcing advanced technologies such as 

waste heat recovery, hybrids, EVs

» Consider a range of test procedure and protocol approaches:

» Chassis dynamometer testing for certification or model validation?

» Is there a need to continue using separate engine standards?

» Do we make our vehicle simulation compliance tool more sophisticated?

» Consider bringing forward the “WP.29” Global Technical Regulation, including 

a new World Harmonized Duty Cycle

» Consider expanding credit trading across the heavy-duty sector

5

DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE
Potential Approach for Phase 2

» Build on successes of Phase 1

» Maintain single national program regulatory structure

» Continue stakeholder outreach, EPA focus on GHGs

» Recognize that this is a highly technical rule

» Phase 1 got existing technologies off the shelf and on to new vehicles

» Phase 2 should consider forcing new and advanced cost-effective technologies

» Identify the new technologies that should be fully recognized

» Waste-heat recovery, hybrids, full electric vehicles, advanced transmissions, intelligent vehicle controls, 

and heat rejection management, others?

» Refine our test procedures and vehicle simulation model for certification

» To equitably recognize these new technologies; as integrated into a complete vehicle

» Conduct baseline and advanced technology testing

» To validate test procedures and model refinements

» To assess emissions reductions

» Assess technology costs and benefits

» Consider options for stringencies and timing, including “phase-ins”

» Consider updating flexibilities

» To ensure a smooth transition to Phase 2, promote innovation, and achieve lowest costs

6

DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE
Some Emerging Questions for 

Phase 2

» We are in the very early stages of assessing these

» This is NOT a comprehensive list:

» Should we continue with separate engine standards in Phase 2?

» Should trailers be included in Phase 2 in some way?

» Should we create more vocational vehicle categories and duty cycles?

» Should we consider vehicle labeling or other consumer information 

approaches?

» Should we consider incentives for alternative fuels/CNG?

7

DRAFT & DELIBERATIVE
Are There Opportunities to Greatly Improve Fuel 

Economy Beyond Phase 1? 

» 84% say room for big improvement

» 69% want more stringent fuel economy regs

Greatest Opportunities

» Class 2b: 40% say you 

could get 20% or more FE 

gain

» Vocational: more than 

half think you can get at 

least 15% improvement

» Many called out 

advanced hybrid / 

electrification as an 

opportunity

Fuel Economy Improvement (Avg.) 

5% 10% 15%

8
Key Issues for Phase 2 Rule:

Duty Cycles, Testing Protocols, Full Vehicle Testing 

are Top Issues

Less Important More Important

9
Duty Cycles Matter for Measuring and 

Testing Truck Efficiency!

» 46% of respondents said duty cycles are “critical/must have”

» 87% said they were “very important” or “critical/must have”

» 89% say tech would benefit from representative duty cycle

Most respondents say need more duty cycles – though 

recognize difficulties

» 2/3 liked 5 duty cycle “straw man”

» Some wanted fewer – maybe 3 representative duty cycles

» Many said “no two fleets are the same” and too difficult / 

costly to try to “pigeonhole” fleets
Consensus Points in Task Group 

Activities to Date

» Support Limited Vocational truck segmentation 

based on how vehicles broadly used (CalHEAT

example)

» Support compiling and recommending limited 

number (3-6) of Duty Cycles that are sufficient to 

cover the basic applications while allowing new 

technology to demonstrate its worth

» Believe there are some duty cycles so custom 

they must be included – Possibly extreme cycles, 

such as refuse variations
Consensus to Date

» 3-4 Vocational segments based on CalHEAT

findings are acceptable and outline way trucks 

generally used

» Duty cycles are critical to successful Phase 2

» However: want to recommend fewest number of 

meaningful “cycles” that “bound’ how a truck 

generally used (cannot specifically match how 

EVERY truck is specifically used) – 80% solution

» Accepted by industry and fleets as adequate
6 Truck Categories – Based on How Trucks Operate

• Younger Trucks; High Annual VMT

• Mostly higher average speed, highway driving 

• Between cities; Drayage; Day Cabs 

• Includes second use trucks; trucks w/ smaller engines 

Over the Road

Short Haul/

Regional 

• Cargo, freight, delivery, collection

• Lower VMT; Lower Average speed; Stop-start Urban

• Cargo, freight, delivery, collection

• Higher VMT; Higher Avg speed; Both urban/ highway

Rural/

Intracity

• Utility trucks, construction, etc. 

• Lots of idle time; Lots of PTO use 

Work site 

support

∙ Commercial use; Automotive OEMs & volumes

Pickups/

Vans

Class 2B/3

Class 3-8 Vocational Work Trucks

Class 7/8 Tractors

13
» Final draft will be 

presented at June 

25 CEC Workshop

» Available for 

reference

» Additional indepth briefings 

can be set

Roadmap Report 
Task Group: Possible Approach for 

Certification

» Combine limited set of appropriate duty cycles 

into ONE test cycle – perform only one test (or 

simulation)

» OEM would use for certification just the 

results on the duty cycle of intended use

» Other data could be used to inform 

fleets/users what to expect if used in different 

cycles
Key Issues

» Compile and recommend 3-6 specific Duty 

Cycles that are sufficient to cover the basic 

applications while allowing new technology to 

demonstrate its worth

» Tech such as transmissions, aero, light weighting, 

hybrid, thermal recovery, work site idling

» Are there some duty cycles so custom they 

must be included?
Existing Duty Cycles!

» Many cycles for trucks and buses

» None are perfect – but are there a few that 

“bound” the way most trucks are used?

17
Possible Consolidation

» Highway line haul – ARB HHDDT; NESCAUM

» Regional haul – modified ARB HHDDT; HTUF Class 8b 

Regional

» Intermodal Class 8 Drayage Truck – Univ. of Texas/Port of 

Houston; TIAX/POLA/POLB

» Pick Up and Delivery – HTUF Class 4 and HTUF Class 6 

Parcel Delivery; CILCC

» Beverage - CILCC variant?

» Neighborhood Refuse Truck – NREL/Ohio State 

University/Oshkosh

» Utility Service Truck – CILCC with work-site operation

» Refrigeration - Handled within the Utility segment due to 

combination of driving cycle and work-site cycle

» Shuttle Bus – (Airport, Rental, Municipal) – truck cycle or 

bus cycle?

» Transit Bus – Manhattan; Orange County: CBD

18
Task Group - Current Discussion: 

Possible Duty Cycles (not final)

» Urban/suburban driving

» CILCC; Pick-up and Delivery (PDDS); transit cycles

» Issues: # stops; extreme cycles (aggregate refuse cycle)

» Intracity/Rural driving

» CILCC with high speed component?; regional class 

8 variant; UDDS

» Work site support cycles

» CILCC for driving; utility work cycle or variant for 

idle component
Discussion Notes 1/24

» Refuse needs to be included somehow as it is an 

unusual application. May need to look at one cycle 

with 100-200 stops, and another with 300-500 and 

another with up to 1500 for extreme circumstances. 

» Also for refuse, need to look at ways to capture 

compaction cycle or auxiliary load, or you are doing a 

disservice to these vocations. For hydraulic hybrids, 

length of stops could be a factor as well.

» Auxiliary load needs to be included in test and maybe 

duty cycles should have definitions of whether 

auxiliaries are on or off for the cycle. 

» QUESTION – Which auxiliaries need to be captured?
» A wide range of advanced, highefficiency truck technology can be 

moved to cost-payback market 

entry points by 2020

» Such outcomes will require strong 

and consistent development, 

validation and early market 

support programs

» To drive full value from the suite of 

available technologies requires a 

more nuanced – but still limited 

and discrete – testing and 

certification process for Phase 2

Summary
CALSTART 

Clean Transportation Technologies 

and Solutions