## 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

» U nintended 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 pre

certifying 

### 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

» A dditional in

depth 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, high

efficiency 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