Addendum to the EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975 United States Environmental Protection ^1 Agency EPA-420-R-19-002AJuly 2019 ------- Addendum: Nissan and Mitsubishi Data This addendum to the 2018 Automotive Trends report provides additional data on Nissan and Mitsubishi. EPA is publishing this additional content to provide data that aligns with a determination by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that the two companies be treated as separate entities for compliance. In late 2016, Nissan purchased 34% of Mitsubishi, thus bringing Mitsubishi into the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi Alliance. The change in the relationship between Nissan and Mitsubishi triggered a review by NHTSA to determine if the two manufacturers should be treated as one entity for the purposes of compliance with the CAFE program, with EPA following NHTSA's determination for the corresponding light-duty GHG program. NHTSA's initial input to EPA was that the two companies would be combined for regulatory purposes, beginning with model year 2017. However, after additional consideration, NHTSA determined that Nissan and Mitsubishi would remain independent for CAFE and, thus, the GHG program. When EPA released the 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report, Nissan and Mitsubishi data were combined and reported as "Nissan-Mitsubishi" throughout most of the report, with the acknowledgement that the review process was not yet complete. At the time, EPA committed to provide an update if, in fact, the two companies were not combined for regulatory purposes. This addendum provides separated Nissan and Mitsubishi data, in accordance with EPA's commitment to provide the most accurate data that reflect the current regulatory configuration of the industry. This addendum does not include any updates to the underlying data presented in the 2018 Trends report and is limited to Nissan and Mitsubishi data. Both estimated real-world data and compliance data are presented below, as in the full report. For an explanation of these terms or more information about the data, please see the full report. Addendum-1 ------- A. Estimated Real World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Nissan has a much larger presence than Mitsubishi in the U.S. light duty vehicle market. For model year 2017, Nissan produced 1,688,689 vehicles, compared to 123,495 vehicles produced by Mitsubishi. The vehicles produced by Mitsubishi are, on average, smaller and more fuel efficient than those of Nissan, as show in the updated Tables 2.2 and 3.3. The values in these two tables show estimated real-world fuel economy and CO2 emission data. The combined Nissan-Mitsubishi values originally reported are shown for comparison purposes only. Throughout the Trends report, many tables and figures only include manufacturers that produced over 150,000 vehicles for sale in the united states. Mitsubishi does not meet this threshold. However, we have chosen to provide Mitsubishi-specific data here to illustrate the impact of separating Nissan and Mitsubishi. Table 2.2. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for Model Year 2016-2018 - Updated MY 2016 Final MY 2017 Final MY2018 Preliminary CO2 Real- Real- Real- FE Change Real- Change Reai- Real- World World World from World from Worid World FE CO2 FE MY 2016 CO2 MY 2016 FE CO2 Manufacturer (mpg) (g/mi) (mpg) (mpg) (g/mi) (g/mi) (mpg) (g/mi) Nissan-Mitsubishi 27.8 318 27.1 -0.7 327 9 26.8 329 Nissan 27.9 318 26.9 -1.0 330 12 26.6 331 Mitsubishi 27.1 328 30.4 3.3 292 -36 29.0 306 Table 3.3. Model Year 2017 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer - Updated Real-World Real-World C02 FE Weight 0 to 60 Footprint Manufacturer (g/mi) (mpg) (lbs) HP (s) (ft2) Nissan-Mitsubishi 327 27.1 3,770 201 8.9 47.6 Nissan 330 26.9 3,815 206 8.7 48.0 Mitsubishi 292 30.4 3,160 134 10.6 42.3 Addendum-2 ------- B. Manufacturer GHG Compliance In accordance with NHTSA's determination, Nissan and Mitsubishi will remain as separate entities for compliance with the CAFE and GHG programs. Both manufacturers ended the 2017 model year with a positive credit balance and are thus in compliance with the model year 2017 and all previous years of the GHG program. The three tables below summarize the compliance data for Nissan and Mitsubishi beginning with model year 2017 (Tables 5.5 and 5.11), and then show the manufacturers' overall credit status (Table 5.17). The combined Nissan-Mitsubishi values originally reported are shown for comparison purposes only. Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2017 (g/mi) - Updated Credits 2-Cycle Off- CH4&N2O Performance Manufacturer Tailpipe FFV TLA AS A/C ATVs Cycle Deficit Value Nissan-Mitsubishi 256 7.7 1.2 2.9 0.0 244 Nissan 258 8.0 1.3 3.2 0.0 246 Mitsubishi 224 5.3 0.0 - - 219 Table 5.11 Credits Earned by Manufacturer in Model Year 2017 - Updated Performance Net Credit Value Standard Compliance Surplus/ Manufacturer (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Production Shortfall (Mg) Nissan-Mitsubishi 244 243 1 1,812,184 -504,236 Nissan 246 244 2 1,688,689 -753,157 Mitsubishi 219 224 -5 123,495 124,720 Table 5.17 Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2017 (g/mi) - Updated Manufacturer Early Credits Earned 2009-2011 Credits Earned 2012-2016 Credit Earned 2017 Credits Expired Credits Forfeited Credits Purchased or Sold Final 2017 Credit Balance Nissan- Mitsubishi 19,580,536 21,305,077 -504,236 -8,773,270 -3,539,063 28,069,044 Nissan 18,131,200 20,331,440 -753,157 -8,190,124 - -3,539,063 25,980,296 Mitsubishi 1,449,336 973,637 124,720 -583,146 - J 1,964,547 Addendum-3 ------- |