Proposed Rulemaking to Es

2012-2016 Light-Duty Vehicl

and GHG Standards

Briefing for Clean Air Act Advisory Co

October 7, 2009
Agenda

 Overview EPA CO2 Standards Key Elements of Proposed Join

Program

 Estimated Costs and Impacts Next Steps
Overview

 On September 15 EPA Administrator Jackson a

LaHood signed a joint NPRM proposing closely-that together comprise a National Program for emissions and improving fuel economy of light

 The National Program proposes strong and coo

GHG and CAFE standards for Model Year 2012-

 Consistent with the May 19, 2009 Joint Notice of  Coordinated national standards can provide regu

consistency for the auto industry

 Would avoid separate NHTSA, EPA, and state reg Automakers could meet NHTSA, EPA, and Califor

with a single national fleet

 National Program will achieve substantial reduc

consumption and GHG emissions

 To a large extent, the joint proposal relies on j

economic analyses and uses similar program dcompliance provisions
EPA CO2 Standards  EPA’s proposed standards estimated to achieve 

250 grams/mile of CO2 in model year 2016

 Standards would phase in beginning in model yea

 Fleetwide CO2 standard could be met partially th

improved air conditioner (A/C) operation

 A/C credits include CO2 & hydrofluorocarbon (HFC HFC refrigerant is a powerful GHG

 The 250 gram/mile CO2 standard corresponds to 

“equivalent” if all reductions resulted from fuel eimprovements

 NHTSA also proposed new CAFE standards whic

estimated fleet average level of 34.1 mpg in 20

 The difference between the EPA and NHTSA standards lie

conditioning technologies manufacturers are projected to 
Robust Technical Analysis and Trare Key Underpinnings of the Pro
Standards are Footprint Attrib

Vehicle Type Example Models

Example Model Footprint 

(sq. ft.)

CO2 Emission

(g/mi)

Example Passenger Cars

Compact car Honda Fit 40 214 

Midsize car Ford Fusion 46 237 

Fullsize car Chrysler 300 53 270 

Example Light-duty Trucks

Small SUV 4WD Ford Escape 44 269 

Midsize 

crossover Nissan Murano 49 289 

Minivan Toyota Sienna 55 313 

Large pickup 

truck Chevy Silverado 67 358 
Internal EPA Material - Do Not Cite or Quote - Deliberative Pro

Proposed EPA CO2 Car Truck Standard Curves:

200250300350400

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Footprint (sq feet)

CO2 (grams per mile)

2012

2016

`

200250300350400

30 35 40 4

CO2 (grams per mile) 2012

2016

Car standard curves Truck stand

curves
Internal EPA Material - Do Not Cite or Quote - Deliberative Pro

Proposed NHTSA MPG CTruck Standard Curves:

202530354045

35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Footprint (sf)

Target (mpg) 2011

20162015201420132012

202530354045

35 40 45 

Target (mpg)

2011

20162015201420132012

Car standard curves Truck s
EPA Projected Fleet-wide COand Achieved Levels

 These values are the projected fleet-wide targets under the fo

and the projected achieved levels

 EPA projects that achieved levels for MY2012-2015 would be le

targets due to a number of flexibilities such as flexible fueled ve

 250 grams/mi CO2 = 35.5 mpg if all GHG reductions are achiev

economy improvements

Targets [g/mi CO2 ] 2012 2013 2

Passenger Cars 261 253 

Light Trucks 352 341 

Combined Cars & Trucks 295 286 

Achieved [g/mi CO2] 2012 2013 2

Passenger Cars 264 254 

Light Trucks 365 355 

Combined Cars & Trucks 302 291 

Car & Trucks MPG-equivalent* 29.4 30.5 

* Note: MPG-equivalent if all GHG reductions come from fuel-economy improvem
NHTSA Projected Fleet-wide Targets and Achieved Level

Achieved [mpg] 2012 2013 2Passenger Cars 32.5 33.4 3

Light Trucks 24.1 24.6 2

Combined Cars & Trucks 28.7 29.6 3

Targets [mpg] 2011

(base)

2012 2013 2

Passenger Cars 30.2 33.6 34.4 3

Light Trucks 24.1 25.0 25.6 2

Combined Cars & Trucks 27.3 29.8 30.6 3

 These values are the projected fleet-wide targets unde

approach and the projected achieved levels

 NHTSA projects that achieved levels for MY2012-2016 w

than the targets due to a number of flexibilities such as credits
EPA Program Flexibilities Emission banking and trading e Flex-fuel vehicle (FFV) credits

 MY2012 – 2015 credits similar to 

MY2016+ credits based on actual 

 Air conditioning HFC and CO2 re

credits

 Early credit opportunities for do

than California or CAFE

 Advance technology credits Innovative technology credits
EPA Program Flexibilities - Op

Temporary Lead-time Allowance Alternativ

 Manufacturers with limited product lines and/or 

paid fines to NHTSA may be especially challengein the early years of the program

 Under the Clean Air Act, manufacturers cannot pa

complying with motor vehicle emissions standards 

 EPA is proposing an optional, temporary alterna

which is only slightly less stringent, and limited model years (2012–2015) of the National Progra

 An option for companies with 2009 US sales <400 A portion of a company’s fleet (for example 25,00

meet a less stringent standard equal to 1.25 times standard. Allotment cannot exceed 100,000 over 

 Intended to provide these manufacturers sufficien

the tougher model year 2016 greenhouse gas stan

 Would preserve consumer choice of vehicles durin Designed to discourage use of this flexibility by im

restrictions

 Eligible companies include all of the traditional CA
Summary of Costs and Ben
Proposed Standards do not 

“next generation” technolo
Consumer Impacts

 Payback period for Model Year 

 Less than 3 years for buyers who  Fuel savings greater than loan pa

increase by $130 to $160 each yetypical 5-year loan

 Lifetime savings of more than $

a 3% discount rate)
Next Steps for Light-duty Join

 NPRM published in Federal Register o

 Comment period ends on Nov. 27

 Three joint public hearings

 Oct. 21 in Detroit, Oct. 23 in New York, Oc

 NHTSA also has issued an Environmental Im

support of the CAFE standards

 45 day comment period ends November 9 Separate public hearing October 30

 Goal for final rule is by end of March