California Greenhouse Gas Vehicle and Fuel Programs · 2007-12-04 · Key Principles Governs intensity. Not amount of fuel sold Measured on lifecycle basis. Fuel providers must decrease

California Greenhouse Gas Vehicle and Fuel Programs

Charles M. Shulock California Air Resources Board

November 28, 2007

NCSL Advisory Council on Energy

2

Overview

• AB 32 basics• GHG tailpipe standards• Low Carbon Fuel Standard

3

AB 32 Basics

• Approved September 27, 2006

• Sets in statute Governor’s 2020 target– Return to 1990 levels by 2020

• ARB to monitor/regulate GHG sources to reduce emissions

• Climate Action Team coordinates statewide climate policy

4

CAT Report Emissions

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1990 2000 2010 2020 2050Year

Mill

ion

Met

ric T

ons

(CO

2 Equ

ival

ent)

1990 Emission Baseline

80% Reduction~341 MMTCO2E

~174 MMTCO2E Reduction

11

11

Magnitude of the Challenge

5

GHG Reductions Required

• By 2020 California must reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels

• Collectively this means reducing:– Today’s levels by 15%

– Projected levels by 28%

– Emission intensity by 33%

6

AB 32 Timeline

20202007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

GHG reduction measures operative

GHG reduction measures adopted

Publish list of early actions

Publish scoping

plan

Mandatory reporting &

1990 Baseline

Adopt enforceable early action regulations

Reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels

Identification/ implementation

of further emission reduction strategies

7

California Climate Change EmissionsCalifornia Climate Change Emissions

7

8

Motor Vehicle GHG Reduction Regulation

• Authorized by Legislature July 2002• Maximum feasible and cost-effective

reduction in greenhouse gas emissions• Adopted by Board September 2004• Legislative review completed 2005• Regulations apply to 2009 and later

model years• Stringency increases through 2016

9

Strong Technical Basis for Regulation

• International Vehicle Technology Symposium

• Comprehensive technical and economic studies – Technology evaluation by auto industry

consultants– Economic modeling by UC professors

• Independent academic peer review

10

Extensive Public Process

• September 26, 2002 Board Meeting• December 3, 2002 Workshop (Emission Inventory)• March 11-13, 2003 Vehicle Technology Symposium• September 18, 2003 Workshop (Standards, Economics)• October 14, 2003 Workshop (Alternative Compliance)• November 20, 2003 Board Meeting• February 18, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• April 20, 2004 Workshop (Technology Assessment)• July 6, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• July 7, 2004 Workshop (Draft Staff Report)• July 8, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• July 13, 2004 Workshop (Environmental Justice)• September 23-24, 2004 Board Meeting

11

• Fleet average standards• Two categories (as in LEV II)

– PC/LDT1– LDT2

• Exemption for work trucks• Credit trading allowed• Less stringent requirements for small

volume manufacturers

Structure of Regulation

12

Regulated Pollutants and Sources

• Standard applies to:– Combined GHG emissions

(CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs)– All vehicular GHG sources

(tailpipe, air conditioner)

• Standard expressed as “CO2-equivalent”– Emissions weighted according to global

warming potential

13

Standards Designed So All Models Can Comply

• Standards set to be feasible for manufacturer with heaviest fleet– Ensures all manufacturers can comply

without altering their fleet mix

• Even the largest SUVs able to comply• Consumer choice maintained

– All models remain available to consumers

14

Fleet Average Emission Standards

CO2-equivalent emission standards (g/km) Tier Year

PC/LDT1 LDT2 2009 202 274 2010 188 262 2011 167 244

Near-term

2012 146 226 2013 142 222 2014 139 219 2015 133 213

Mid-term

2016 128 208

~22% reductionin 2012

~30% reductionin 2016

15

Effect on Climate Change Emissions

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035

Calendar Year

Ligh

t Dut

y Ve

hicl

e C

O 2 E

quiv

alen

t Ton

s Pe

r Day

Without Regulation

With Regulation

-18% -27%

16

Available Technologies (Near-Term)

• Variable valve timing and lift• Turbocharging• Cylinder deactivation• Improved multi-speed transmissions• Electric power steering• Improved alternator• Gasoline direct injection• More efficient, low-leak air conditioning

17

Available Technologies

Cylinder Deactivation

Automated Manual Transmission

2005 Chrysler 300C Hemi

Audi TT 3.2 V6

6%*

7%

* % CO2 reduction, large car

18

Available Technologies

Acura RSX Variable valve timing and lift Honda Accord

Toyota Matrix

4%

19

Available TechnologiesGasoline Direct Injection

w/dual cam phasers

Turbocharger

BMW Valvetronic(continuously variable valve timing and lift)

BMW 5 Series

2005 Audi A4

Volvo S60

5%

8%

6%

20

Emerging Technologies (Mid-Term)

• Integrated starter/generator• Camless valve actuation• Gasoline homogeneous charge

compression ignition • More efficient, low-leak R-152a air

conditioning system

21

Emerging Technologies

2005 Chevrolet Silverado

Camless Valve Actuation

Homogeneous Combustion Compression Ignition

4%

6% 16%

Integrated Starter/Generator

22

Available TechnologiesNot Considered

• Gasoline hybrids– Prius, Escape, Civic

• Diesel– E320, Jetta TDI

• Not considered in setting stringency of GHG standard– HEV: Not yet widely available– Diesel: Emission compliance not certain

23

Average Price Increase of New Low GHG Vehicles

Retail Vehicle Price Increase

Passenger CarsLight Trucks/SUVs Large Trucks/SUVs

Near Term2012 $367 $277

Mid Term2016 $1064 $1029

24

Net Savings for Consumer (Passenger Cars and Small Trucks)

Near Term(2012)

Mid Term(2016)

Monthly PaymentIncrease

$7 $20

Monthly OperatingCost Savings

$18 $23

Monthly Net Savings $11 $3

Assumes fuel price of $1.74 per gallon

25

Net Savings for Vehicle Purchaser

$1.74per gallon

$5.00per gallon

Monthly PaymentIncrease

$7 $7

Monthly OperatingCost Savings

$18 $52

Monthly Net Savings $11 $45

Near-Term 2012

26

Net Savings for Vehicle Purchaser

$1.74per gallon

$5.00per gallon

Monthly PaymentIncrease

$20 $20

Monthly OperatingCost Savings

$23 $66

Monthly Net Savings $3 $46

Mid-Term 2016

27

Supplemental Analysis

• Potential effects– Fleet turnover (impacts on sales)– Rebound effect (impacts on VMT)

• Not part of traditional analysis• Useful to develop California-specific tools• Bottom line--effects are small

California’sLow Carbon Fuel Standard

Low Carbon Fuel Standard

California Environmental Protection AgencyCalifornia Environmental Protection Agency

AIR RESOURCES BOARDAIR RESOURCES BOARD

29

GHG emissions depend on how the fuel is made Representative lifecycle GHG emissions (gCO2e/mile)

(Uncertaintes are not shown, actual results may vary)

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

500

Gasoline upstreamGasoline TailpipeBiomass ProcessingFeedstock ProductionElectricity Generation

Gasoline

E85 Switch -

grass

Oil Tar Sands

CTL E85 Corn 1

E85 Corn 2

Advanced Biofuels ?

Coal Nat'l. Gas

Coal w/ CCS ?

Nuke / Renew

BiofuelsElectricity

Source: A.E. Farrell, Energy & Resources Group, UC Berkeley

30

Benefits of LCFS

Help to meet the GHG reduction goals of AB32

Reduce dependency on petroleum-based fuels by displacing 20% gasoline consumption

Diversify California’s options for transportation fuels

31

LCFS Benefits (Cont’)

Create a market for low carbon fuels and a stable investment environment

Enlarge renewable fuels market by expandingCalifornia’s alternative fuels markets by 3 to 5 times, while reducing GHG emissions

Promote direction of technology innovation with lower carbon foot-print

Promote more alternative fuel and hybrid vehicles

32

Development of LCFS: Key Principles

Governs intensity. Not amount of fuel soldMeasured on lifecycle basis. Fuel providers must decrease overall greenhouse gas emissionsMarket-based. Allows averaging, banking and trading to lower cost and provide flexibilityPerformance-based. Sets carbon reduction standards and methods to calculate complianceFuel-neutral. Fuel providers can choose which fuels to sell and in what volumes

33

Development of LCFS: Flexible Options for Compliance

Fuel providers will have different options by which to comply, including:

Only produce fuels that meet the standardSelling a mix of higher and lower carbon fuels that on average meet the standardUsing previously banked creditsPurchasing credits from other fuel providers who earned credits by exceeding the standard

34

LCFS Schedule

University of California completes LCFS study with CEC & ARB

Initiate draft regulatory language

LCFS regulation submitted to the Board for consideration

2007

Early 2008

End of2008

2009 Regulation submitted to Office of Administrative Law

2007-2008 Conduct LCFS workshops

Fall 2008 Regulatory package completed

Implementation2010-2020