California Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Motor Vehicles Charles M. Shulock California Air Resources Board April 28, 2005 Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Stakeholder Meeting
Jan 02, 2016
California Regulations to Control Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Motor Vehicles
Charles M. ShulockCalifornia Air Resources Board
April 28, 2005
Rhode Island Greenhouse Gas Stakeholder Meeting
2
Clear Public Supportfor Action
“What about the state law that requires all automakers to further reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases from new cars in California by 2009? Do you support or oppose this law?”
2004: 81% support2003: 80% support2002: 81% support
3
AB 1493 Requirements
• Adopt regulations by January 1, 2005– Maximum feasible and cost-effective
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
• Regulations may not take effect prior to January 1, 2006 (legislative review)
• Regulations apply to 2009 and later model years
4
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
5
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
6
Vehicle GHG Sources
A/C compressorEngine Transmission
Methane
Nitrous Oxide
CO2
CO
2
HFCs
7
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
8
Available Technologies
Cylinder Deactivation
Automated Manual Transmission
2005 Chrysler 300C Hemi
Audi TT 3.2 V6
6%*
7%
* % CO2 reduction, large car
9
Available Technologies
Acura RSX Variable valve timing and lift Honda Accord
Toyota Matrix
4%
10
Available Technologies
Gasoline Direct Injectionw/dual cam phasers
Turbocharger
BMW Valvetronic(continuously variable valve timing and lift)
BMW 5 Series
2005 Audi A4
Volvo S60
5%
8%
6%
11
Emerging Technologies (Mid-Term)
• Integrated starter/generator
• Camless valve actuation
• Gasoline homogeneous charge compression ignition
• More efficient, low-leak R-152a air conditioning system
12
Emerging Technologies
2005 Chevrolet Silverado
Camless Valve Actuation
Homogeneous Combustion Compression Ignition
4%
6% 16%
Integrated Starter/Generator
13
Fleet Average Emission Standards
CO2-equivalent emissionstandards (g/mi)Tier Year
PC/LDT1 LDT2
2009 323 4392010 301 4202011 267 390
Near-term
2012 233 3612013 227 3552014 222 3502015 213 341
Mid-term
2016 205 332
~22% reductionin 2012
~30% reductionin 2016
14
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
15
Regulation ReducesClimate Change Emissions
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Calendar Year
Lig
ht
Du
ty V
eh
icle
CO 2
Eq
uiv
ale
nt
To
ns
Pe
r D
ay
Without Regulation
With Regulation
Linear (WithoutRegulation)
-18% -27%
16
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
17
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
18
Economic Impacts
• More jobs (+53,000 in 2020)
• Higher personal income (+$4.8 billion)
• Increase in number of businesses
• Positive effect on minority and low income communities
19
Supplemental Analysis (Other Possible Impacts)
• Potential effects– Fleet turnover (impact on sales)
– Rebound (impact on miles driven)
• Not part of traditional analysis
• Developed California-specific tools
• Bottom line--effects are small
20
Issue--Estimated Costs and Benefits
• Industry typically overstates cost
• Industry estimates rely on weight reduction (expensive)– Lower cost technologies not used
• ARB benefits assume gasoline @ $1.74
21
Automaker’s 1994 Analysis of CA LEV I Standards$
46
3
$1
,01
9
$1
,47
5
$1
46
$1
99 $3
12
$1
20
$1
68 $
33
6$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
California TLEVStandard
California LEV IStandard
California ULEV IStandard (midsize)
Sierra Research
CARB
Actual
Automaker’s estimates were 4-6x too high
Source: NRDC
22
Consistent Pattern of Overestimation
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
1975Federal
Standard($2004)
CaliforniaLEV I
Standard($1994)
CaliforniaULEV I
Standard,midsize($1994)
1996FederalTier1 +OBD
($2001)
CaliforniaULEV II,
Heavy LightTruck
($1998)
CaliforniaCO2-eqStandard($2004)
Industry & Allies Low
Industry & Allies High
Regulators
Actual
Source: NRDC
23
Issue--GHG Impact of Regulation
• California regulation alone will not solve problem, but…
• Proposal provides net benefit
• California not acting in isolation
• Other jurisdictions follow California lead
• California doing its fair share
24
Issue--Model Availability
• Standard can be met by all manufacturers while maintaining today’s fleet
• Speed, power, towing capacity--same as 2009 baseline
• Requires improved technology, not different vehicles
25
Current Status
• Rulemaking– Responding to comments– Staff document (Final Statement of Reasons)
to be submitted to Office of Administrative Law
• Litigation– Federal court– State court