Green Car Congress  
Go to GCC Discussions forum About GCC Contact  RSS Subscribe Twitter headlines

« Chrysler to Offer First Mid-Size Sedan Diesel with 2007 Sebring; Only Outside of North America | Main | IEA Report: World Can Halve Expected Growth in Oil and Power Consumption by 2050 »

Print this post

Oregon Formally Adopts California Low Emission Vehicle Rules; CO2 Restrictions Included

24 June 2006

Ca_lev_24_jun06
States that have adopted the California LEV rules.

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) last week unanimously approved the permanent rules to adopt California’s Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Standards, including mandated reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Eleven states have now adopted California LEV: California, Oregon, Washington, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Under the federal Clean Air Act, states can opt either for federal emission standards (EPA) or adopt the emission standards developed by California. Federal law requires states that adopt California emission standards to do so identically, thereby preventing the need for manufacturers to produce a “third vehicle” to meet the new standard. However, states do have flexibility to customize implementation of the standards.

Oregon’s implementation of LEV rules will take effect with the 2009 model year—the same year greenhouse gas reductions will take effect in several other states. Oregon’s adoption of LEV rules also brings the rules to Washington, which adopted the standards contingent on Oregon adopting them.

California LEV standards have two main components. The first is the reduction of traditional criteria pollutants such as NOx and non-methane organic gases. The other is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions with progressively restrictive emission limits from 2009 through 2016, at which time new vehicles must emit an average of 30% less CO2 equivalent.

The targeted results are expected to be achieved using existing technologies or alternative fuels.

Oregon’s implementation of the LEV has some of the following differences from California LEV:

  • Delaying the deadline for manufacturers to provide Type III ZEVs (hydrogen fuel cell vehicles) in Oregon. The delay allows DEQ and the EQC to monitor the development of a hydrogen-refueling infrastructure as one key trigger for the requirement. Other vehicles used to meet the ZEV requirements—including battery-electric vehicles, partial zero emission vehicles (PZEV) and advanced technology partial zero emission vehicles (ATPZEV)—are required in 2009 under this rulemaking as specified in the California program.

  • Oregon’s implementation does not require manufacturers to provide low-emission PZEVs and ATPZEVs with a 15-year or 150,000 mile warranty on all emission-related components, as do the california LEV rules. However, to ensure that Oregon does not receive less durable vehicles, it does require that PZEVs include the same quality components as those vehicles supplied to states that require the warranty.

  • The Oregon LEV rule incorporates NMOG fleet-average phase-in provisions adopted in Washington, which require manufacturers to meet the NMOG fleet average emission limit at the end of a three-year transitional period. During the phase-in period, manufacturers may earn emission credits in each of the three years, and may drop up to two years of emission debits. The balance of the three-year transitional period is then carried forward.

Resources:

June 24, 2006 in Climate Change, Emissions, Policy | Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBack (1)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d83428b04253ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Oregon Formally Adopts California Low Emission Vehicle Rules; CO2 Restrictions Included:

» Oregon Formally Adopts California Low Emission Vehicle Rules; CO2 Restrictions Included from
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's (DEQ) Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) last week unanimously approved the permanent rules to adopt California's Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) Standards, including mandated reductions in greenhouse gas... [Read More]

Comments

Can an engineer answer a couple of questions for me?

What "existing technologies" do the politicians expect the auto industry can use to reduce CO2 by that 30% in ten years?

Well I am no engineer but the easiest way to reduce CO2 is by increasing gas mileage a lot of this is making your particular class of vehicle lighter or smaller. Also increase the efficiency of things like your air conditioning. Using super light wheels like those developed for the EV1. etc.etc.

Jim: Can a lighter vehicle meet crash test safety regulations? On Wikipedia one of the reasons given for the cancellation of the EV1 program was that the new regulations in the late 90s made the car too expensive to re-engineer for the limited market the car would appeal to.

There's other details missing from this post, too. 30% reduction of CO2 equivelent? Does this mean it can come from other areas than just combustion? Is this an across the board requirement, meaning each and every individual model/engine? Or is it a fleetwide average?

What I'd really like to know is: "Are these regulations technically feasable for a reasonable cost?" Fuel cells are still horribly expensive, yet the politicians expect that they'll somehow be affordable in just a few short years.

If they expect automakers to use alternative fuels to meet the CO2 regulations, the feedstock has to come from somewhere. And supply will have to grow very fast to meet demand. We're already having problems with the oxygenate requirement and ethanol because of last year's Energy Act, and we were 2 billion gallons short of meeting the requirements. Ethanol is now over $4.50 a gallon.

What "existing technologies" do the politicians expect the auto industry can use to reduce CO2 by that 30% in ten years?.... There's other details missing from this post, too. 30% reduction of CO2 equivelent? Does this mean it can come from other areas than just combustion? Is this an across the board requirement, meaning each and every individual model/engine? Or is it a fleetwide average?

What I'd really like to know is: "Are these regulations technically feasable for a reasonable cost?" Fuel cells are still horribly expensive, yet the politicians expect that they'll somehow be affordable in just a few short years.

The post says it can be achieved with existing technology and/or alternative fuels.

The first link in the Resource list elaborates:
"When California has fully phased in the greenhouse gas requirements by 2016,
new vehicles must emit an average of 30% less carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2E), which is a measure of greenhouse gas emissions.3 The targeted results
are expected to be achieved using existing technologies or alternative fuels.
Those technologies include turbo charging, cylinder deactivation, variable valve
lift and timing, low-leak air conditioning, continuously variable transmissions,
direct fuel injection, and electric power steering.4"

Basically, it sounds like your standard basket of things already being done by automakers. The term "CO2 equivalent" is simply a metric to normalize greenhouse gas emissions, since different gases have different global warming potentials (GWP).

As for cost, your upper boundary is going to be defined by current hybrid and clean diesel premiums, which are $4K and dropping. To give a concrete example from current models, the Civic Hybrid emits 33% less CO2 equivalent than a standard Civic, and an E85 Tahoe has 18% lower CO2 equivalent emissions than a standard gas version of the vehicle (even though it gets far worse fuel economy).

A very realistic target, IMO, considering the cost curves for these technologies.

It doesn't seem that heavier vehicles are really that much safer than lighter vehicles. Seems to be more dependent on vehicle engineering as some lightweight cars (Toyota Echo for example at 2150lbs) are very low death rates and some very heavy vehicles (large 4 wheel drive SUVs) have high death rates.

Then again the heavier vehicle is also shown to CAUSE more death in vehicles impacted while not always affording any additional protection (with the exclusion of mini-vans and luxury vehicles which seem to be safe all around).

www.iihs.org
www.nhtsa.gov
www.lbl.gov

In reducing CO2, another big help, or, it could be a touch down, is for the auto makers to begin producing plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) with E85 gas or bio diesel engines. Exchanging an average 20 mpg car (producing 12,000 lbs of CO2/yr, for one that can get 100+ mpg. (low estimate if engine is bio capable) would begin a paradigm shift away from oil for auto transportation! This will take time, but it can happen.

At the same time, we need to encourage the electric utilities toward more renewable sources such as, wind, solar, wave, and tidal. Giving all customers a choice in which source of power generation to use would be another great step, as some areas allow today. The renewables are much cleaner, but may cost the customer more in the short run.

i really liked this bit, Oregon’s implementation does not require manufacturers to provide low-emission PZEVs and ATPZEVs with a 15-year or 150,000 mile warranty on all emission-related components, as do the california LEV rules. However, to ensure that Oregon does not receive less durable vehicles, it does require that PZEVs include the same quality components as those vehicles supplied to states that require the warranty.
heh, oregon getting shitty parts because they don't require the same warranty...i wonder why they removed the warranty provision though, it's like, if the parts are the same, why bother changing the warranty on them?

The same way they did it last time. To sell a car people dont wana buy.. you make it dirt cheap and sell to the poor. See the consumer decides what we buy not politicians. But car makers can sell anything to the poor... if its cheap enough.

i wonder why they removed the warranty provision though, it's like, if the parts are the same, why bother changing the warranty on them?

I can't tell you why they did it, but it's effect would seem to be as such: the manufacturers must sell specific parts in CA and OR, but in the case of failure, are only obligated to fix them in CA.

It's a bit like a chef serving the exact same food in two restaurants, but only offering a money back guarantee in one of them. The other restaurant knows that the chef is trying to serve them good food lest he get stuck giving money back at his other restaurant.

The question I have is: is this where environmentalism stops?

We see so many of these maps, and they almost always look like this. Sometimes New Hampshire agrees to play ball, and occasionally Maryland and/or Delaware are colored.

But why can't we extend off the Pacific and Northern Atlantic? Which states are "next"? Nevada? Pennsylvania? Virginia or West Virginia? New Mexico? Minnesota or Wisconsin? Hawaii?

I wouldn't expect Michigan to jump in this game with automobiles, and I'm not holding my breath for real GOP areas with massive pollution like Florida, Georgia, or Texas. But, it seems like there are some blue and some purple states that could get in on this, and yet it doesn't happen.

Why not?

A pending court case pits CARB and the states that back it against the federal government and the auto industry. CO2 emissions from ICEs are directly associated with fuel economy, hitherto the exclusive preserve of the federal government.

I hope CARB wins this one, if only because it would automatically extend their charter to energy policy as well, such that noxious emissions and fuel economy have to be traded off within a single agency.

---

In Europe, the local carmaker's association ACEA entered into a voluntary fleet average of 140g/km CO2 for new vehicle registrations in 2008. This happened back in 1995, when the average was 186 g/km CO2. Today, partly due to more stringent safety regs, they are only down to ~160 g/km CO2, mostly due to the popularity of diesels.

Japanese and Korean manufacturers have made similar commitments regarding their exports to Europe. Their relative improvement is similar but the absolute numbers are higher because they sell fewer diesel cars.

The EU has indicated it wants ACEA to reach 120 g/km CO2 by 2012 and 90g/km CO2 by 2020 or so, but has not (yet) made these targets mandatory. Carmakers argue that such low limits would require them to build only subcompacts and microcars, so renewable biofuels are needed to shoulder some of the burden. Hence carmakers' involvement with e.g. Choren (BTL) and Iogen (cellulosic ethanol).

http://www.euractiv.com/en/transport/carmakers-fail-deliver-co2-cuts-fuel-consumption/article-154444
http://www.choren.com/en/energy_for_all/sundiesel/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/vw_shell_and_io.html

Note: the following relates to Europe rather than the US because of the data I found. The methodology and conclusions should be roughly applicable elsewhere as well, though.

---

Cars also emit GHGs via their a/c (typical modern refrigerant R134a, GWP = 1300), because mechanically driven systems cannot be hermetically sealed. Leakage rates are estimated at ~8-13% per year, when you consider that 50% of old European cars are exported to third world countries where the remaining refrigerant is (most likely) vented during scrapping. That translates to roughly ~90g R134a emitted per year and vehicle, equivalent to ~177 kg CO2. These emissions are evaporative and occur even if the a/c is not used (cp. HC from gasoline tanks of parked vehicles).

http://www.oekorecherche.de/english/berichte/volltext/MAC-LOSS-2001.pdf

For reference, average distances driven in Austria are 15,000km/year for new gasoline and 20,000km/year for new diesel cars. New vehicle market share is 66/34 in favor of diesel, so average distance is ~18300 km/year at ~150 g CO2/km based on NEDC certification. The latter number is below the EU average due to the extreme skew toward diesels here. This translates to ~2750 kg CO2 per year and vehicle with the a/c always switched OFF.

However, actual a/c usage requires 0.3-0.6l/100km additional fuel depending on vehicle size, roughly 5%. Assuming ~20% of total distance is driven with the a/c switched on, that adds another 25-30kg CO2 per year. Ergo, total emissions due to a/c are 177+27.5 = ~200kg CO2 equivalent per year, or ~7% over and above the advertised tailpipe emissions. Given the uncertainties in the inputs, perhaps claiming a range of 5-10% would be more appropriate.

Unfortunately, ACEA's voluntary commitment does not address GHG emissions from a/c systems at all, even though some 90% of European cars produced since 2000 do feature a/c systems.

http://www2.ademe.fr/servlet/getBin?name=6D75E63635EE4D69F6466B580462CCDD1137167979538.pdf

ACEA members are on track to switch to high-pressure a/c systems based on R744 (CO2, GWP = 1), e.g. in the upcoming Audi Q7.

http://www.all4engineers.com/index.php;site=a4e/lng=en/do=show/alloc=3/id=3377

Finally, note that it may one day become feasible to replace compressor-driven a/c systems and the associated extra fuel with small ruggedized absoprtion chillers powered by the engine coolant.

http://www.itt.uni-stuttgart.de/~schaal/index.en.html

The best way to increase safety to quit driving. Portland, Oregon has done a great deal to make it more convenient for people to cut back on driving and will do more. Combine lower emissions of CO2 per car; but also find ways to get people to drive less. Otherwise, if we continue our historic increases in miles traveled, it will be all for nought.

Driving less, (or promoting a vehicle technology that most contributes toward this goal), is perhaps the most important tribute to the Plug-in Hybrid. Their large battery pack only affords a zero-emission, battery-only driving range of 10-40 miles, depending on vehicle weight and class. Greater range is not necessarily an advantage because ultimately, T is correct, the only way to reduce emissions is to drive (and transport goods) less. So, having a vehicle that provides zero emission a reasonably limited driving range encourages short trips, which builds local economies and the development of more destinations accessable without having to drive. Walking and bicycling become safer, and mass transit more practically arranged. The Plug-in Hybrid will allow millions of people to tell their bosses where to stick it. :)

Wells:

It it's a plug in hybrid, it will automatically go into normal hybrid mode as soon as the charge is depleted. So I don't get how this encourages shorter trips. Do you expect people to say, "uh, oh, I just switched to normal mode, better pull over and quit driving"?

Now if you combine that will $10 per gallon gasoline, then maybe your theory would work. The cost for electricity would just be a few pennies per mile.

The CO2 reduction requirements are just as feasible as were seat belts, unleaded gasoline and air bags, and the car companies will piss and moan just as loudly about them. My Prius gets 45 MPG in city driving with the A/C going full blast and dusting kids at the stop lights. Suck on that, Detroit.

The beauty of using a "CO2 equivalent" is that it decouples emissions from fuel economy. A fat ass truck getting 16 MPG on pure ethanol more than meets the requirement because there's no *net* release of CO2. Anyone worried about the high price of fuel ethanol should lobby their Congressanimals to repeal the $0.54 per gallon import duty. Brazil made 10 million tonnes of the stuff last year relatively cheaply.

If GHG release from unsealed A/C compressors is a problem, then use sealed electric-drive A/C compressors.

T. The inspiration to drive less should not occur at the point where a Plug-in shifts from battery pack to ICE, though for some people it will. "Oh, driving costs me more now, to get to Costco 10 miles down the highway where I probably won't save money after all. Perhaps I should turn around and spend that gas money instead at the corner grocery mart."

Even people who are actually looking can't see very far into the future. The dubious efforts of most automobile manufacturers indicates their exective directors see the future public motoring as if there's no tomorrow. Perhaps they divine accurately and act accordingly. "Eat, drink and drive, for tomorrow we die, er drive."

"Dusting kids at the stop lights"??? With the slow acceleration of the Prius my guess is that you *thought* you were racing somebody and driving overly aggressive while they were just driving normally. I see at least 1/2 of the prius owners around here taking off from stop lights as fast as they can...and I thought the idea was to achieve better fuel economy?

and I thought the idea was to achieve better fuel economy?

Which it does -- 45 mpg is excellent for a vehicle of that size.

Patrick:
Prius has instant and high rate of acceleration from stand still (and rolling acceleration too) because of high and instant torque curve of permanent magnet electric motors and Infinitely Variable Transmission. It actually feels much more powerful then it is.
Also the beauty of hybrid drivetrain is that you can drive very aggressively, and still regenerative braking return most of the energy produced during sharp acceleration back to the battery. So, unlike regular car, aggressive driving in hybrid increases fuel consumption only by small degree.

Richard -

biofuel production requires quite a bit of fossil fuels for the agriculttural machinery and fertilzer. An often cited method is the so-called EROEI (energy returned on energy in). This is about ~0.85 for mineral fuels, ~1.25 for ethanol from corn, ~1.6 for ethanol from sugar beets and ~8 for ethanol from sugar cane.

That suggests that in the US, it takes about 2/3 as much fossil fuel to deliver energy in the form of ethanol as it does to deliver the same energy in the form of mineral gasoline. Ergo, there is very much a net release of CO2. In theory, you could switch to agricultural equipment that itself runs on ethanol (or biodiesel) but that would currently still price them out of the market.

Btw, the EROEI for E85 based on corn ethanol is ~1.2. Note, however, that these calculations are based on equivalent amounts of energy, not identical volume. Due to ethanol's lower energy density, you need to buy 4 gallons of E85 @ ~$2.50 = $10.00 to get the equivalent of 3 gallons of mineral gasoline @ ~$2.90 = $8.70. Thus, the greenery of using E85 will cost you 10-15% more at the pump.

Moreover, you (or your children) are also paying for corn subsidies. On that score, Europe and Japan are even worse.

Nixing the US import tariffs on ethanol would indeed reduce prices at the pump and encourage tropical countries other than Brazil to get into the ethanol business. However, this would come at the expense of the bottom lines of US corn farmers and ethanol refiners (e.g. ADM). This being an election year and so many Americans whipped up into a general xenophobic frenzy (foreign oil, border fence, ...), it seems unlikely the tariff will be abandoned any time soon.

Wrt GHG from a/c units: switching to an electric compressor requires a substantially more powerful and/or more efficient alternator. Also, you have to protect a 12V battery from brownouts. Your suggestion is definitely an option in hybrid cars, but regular ones will be stuck with mechanical compressors for a long time to come. Besides, switching to R744 refrigerant will render the risk of venting during scrapping (in non-OECD countries) a moot point.

45mpg is excellent compared to the average vehicle...but when the EPA cycle states 55mpg combined cycle getting 45mpg due to aggressive driving is just shameful.

Andrey- are you implying that an aggressive acceleration from a standstill in a Prius will NOT use the gas engine at all?

getting 45mpg due to aggressive driving is just shameful

While the average driver around you is getting 20 mpg? No, I have to disagree.

Hey CARBocrats...

Do any of you knotheads realize that you have just ruled out hydrogen fuel cell cars? The only emission in such a vehicle is water.

But water is some 16 times as strong a "green house gas" as CO2, you dorks!! So that makes a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle some 16 times the polluter of any carbon fueled vehicle, in CO2 Equivalent.

Now having decided that CO2 and H2O are pollutants, who is assigned the job of draining the Pacific Ocean??

And where do you "sequester" it? Or is that no concern to you, and industry will just have to go figure out how to do it?

Work expands to fill the time available for bureaucrats. It never occured to these knotheads that they have achieved what they set out to do. They succeeded in tgeir task of the forced engineeering of a clean ground transport vehicle.

They can't just Declare Victory! disband, close up shop, and go home. No sirreee!

They have to get into a NEW REASON FOR BEING!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Green Car Congress © 2013 BioAge Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. | Home | BioAge Group