Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Consumption Rates for Onroad
Vehicles in MOVES4
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Greenhouse Gas and Energy
Consumption Rates for Onroad
Vehicles in MOVES4
Assessment and Standards Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NOTICE
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using
data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such
reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments.
United States
Environmental Protection
^1 Agency
EPA-420-R-23-026
August 2023
-------
Contents
1 Introduction 5
2 Energy Rates 6
2.1 Light-Duty Vehicles 6
2.1.1 Light-Duty GHG and CAFE Regulations 7
2.1.2 Light-Duty Running Energy Rates for Internal Combustion Engines 11
2.1.3 Light-Duty Running Energy Rates for Electric Vehicles 17
2.1.4 Light-Duty Start Energy Rates 19
2.2 Heavy-Duty Vehicles 22
2.2.1 Heavy-Duty Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Energy Rates 23
2.2.2 Hotelling Shore Power Energy Consumption 24
3 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission Rates 25
3.1 Gasoline Vehicles 26
3.2 Diesel Vehicles 29
3.2.1 Light-Duty Diesel 29
3.2.2 Heavy-Duty Diesel 30
3.3 Alternative-Fueled Vehicles 34
4 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Rates 35
4.1 Carbon Dioxide Calculations 35
4.2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions 36
5 Fuel Consumption Calculations 37
Appendices 39
Appendix A. Timeline of Energy and GHG emissions in MOVES 39
Appendix B. Emission Control Technology Phase-In used for N2O Emission Rate
Calculations 41
Appendix C. EV ALPHA Parameters and Results 45
Appendix D. Derivation of Heavy-Duty EV and FCEV Energy Efficiency Ratios 48
6 References 52
2
-------
List of Acronyms
ABT
emissions averaging, banking and trading program
A/C
Air Conditioning
ALPHA
Advanced Light-Duty Powertrain and Hybrid Analysis
APU
auxiliary power units
BEV
battery electric vehicle
bhp
brake horsepower
BTU
British Thermal Unit
CAFE
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
CARB
California Air Resources Board
CBD
Central Business District
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
ch4
methane
CNG
Compressed Natural Gas
CO
carbon monoxide
C02
carbon dioxide
CRC
Coordinating Research Council
DB
database
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
DPF
Diesel Particulate Filter
EMFAC
CARB emissions factors model
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EER
Energy Efficiency Ratio
FCEV
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicle
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FTP
Federal Test Procedure
g
grams
GHG
Greenhouse Gases
g/mi
Grams per mile
GVWR
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
GWP
Global Warming Potential
THC
Total Hydrocarbons
HD
Heavy-Duty
HDIU
Heavy-Duty Diesel In-Use
HDT
Heavy-Duty Truck
HFC
Hydrofluorocarbon
HHD
Heavy-Heavy-Duty Class 8 Trucks (GVWR > 33,000 lbs)
HHDD
Heavy Heavy-Duty Diesel
HP
horsepower
HPMS
Highway Performance Monitoring System
hr
hour
HV
heating value
H20
water
ICE
Internal Combustion Engine
I/M
Inspection and Maintenance program
-------
kJ
Kilojoules
kW
Kilowatt
LD
Light-Duty
LHD
Light-Heavy-Duty
LHD2b3
Light-Heavy-Duty Class 2b and 3 Truck (8,500 < GVWR < 14,000 lbs)
LHD45
Light Heavy-Duty Class 4 or 5 Truck (14,000 < GVWR < 19,500 lbs)
LHDDT
Light Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck
MC
Motorcycle
MDPV
Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicle
MHD
Medium-Heavy-Duty Class 6 and 7 Trucks (19,500 < GVWR < 33,000
lbs)
M0BILE6
EPA Highway Vehicle Emission Factor Model, Version 6
MOVES
Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator Model
MY
model year
MYG
model year group
NREL
National Renewal Energy Laboratory
N20
nitrous oxide
OBD
On-Board Diagnostics
OEM
Original Equipment Manufacturer
PERE
Physical Emission Rate Estimator
SCR
selective catalytic reduction
STP
scaled tractive power
UDDS
Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule
VIN
Vehicle Identification Number
VIUS
Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey
VMT
Vehicle Miles Traveled
VSP
vehicle specific power
-------
1 Introduction
This report describes the energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) rates in MOVES and documents the
data sources and analyses we used to develop the energy and greenhouse gas emission rates. A
timeline of the development of the energy and greenhouse gas emission rates in MOVES is
presented in Appendix A.
This report is divided into four major sections:
1. Energy Rates
2. Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission Rates
3. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Emission Rates
4. Fuel Consumption Calculations
The energy rates for light-duty vehicles are based on the work conducted for MOVES2004,1
however, they have been significantly updated in subsequent versions of MOVES, including
MOVES2009, MOVES2010, MOVES2014, and MOVES3. This report documents the changes
in energy rates that were made between MOVES2010, MOVES2014, and MOVES3. We point
the reader to the earlier reports that document the development of the energy rates prior to
MOVES2010.1'2
MOVES2014 incorporated the light-duty greenhouse gas emission standards affecting model
years 2017 and later cars and light trucks.3 MOVES2014 also incorporated the Heavy-Duty
GHG Phase 1 emissions standards for model years 2014 and later.4 In this report, we briefly
discuss the impact of the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 standards implemented in MOVES2014
and MOVES3 respectively, however, the details of the energy rates for heavy-duty are
documented in the MOVES heavy-duty emissions rates report.5
As explained below, energy rates were updated in MOVES3 to incorporate the 2020 Safer
Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles standards6 for light-duty passenger cars and trucks
and to incorporate the Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium-
and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2 Rule ("HD GHG2") published in 2016.7 .
In MOVES4, we updated energy consumption rates for light-duty internal combustion engines to
account for the Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards (LD GHG 2023-2026) rule.8 We also updated running process energy
consumption for light-duty electric vehicles (Section 2.1.3), and added energy consumption for
heavy-duty electric and fuel-cell vehicles (Section 2.2). Additional updates relevant to GHGs
and energy are described in the MOVES4 emission adjustment report.23 These include
adjustments to account for charging efficiency, battery deterioration, cabin temperature control
and the impact of electric vehicle fractions on the effective standards for internal combustion
engine (ICE) vehicles.
In MOVES4, we also updated the heavy-duty diesel emission rates to account for newer studies
which show the significant impacts that selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems have on N2O
emissions (Section 3.2.2.2). The nitrous oxide (N2O) emission rates for light-duty diesel and all
gasoline and CNG vehicles remain the same; they have not been updated since MOVES2010.
5
-------
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emission rates in MOVES are calculated using the energy emission
rates. The values used to convert energy to carbon dioxide emissions are presented here, along
with the equation and values used to calculate carbon dioxide equivalent emission rates. The
methods and data used to calculate nonroad fuel consumption and CO2 emission rates for
nonroad equipment are documented in the nonroad emission rate reports.9'10
We also present the values that MOVES uses to calculate fuel consumption in volume (gallons).
MOVES currently reports fuel usage in terms of energy (e.g., kilojoules), but calculates gallons
for use in internal calculators as well. The values are presented in this report, so that users can
calculate fuel volumes using MOVES output in a manner consistent with the MOVES
calculators.
Lastly, although methane is considered one of the major greenhouse gases, the development of
methane emission rates is not documented in this report. The methane emissions in MOVES are
calculated as a fraction of the total hydrocarbon emissions. Both the methane fractions and total
hydrocarbon emission rates in MOVES4 stay the same as in MOVES3 and are documented in
the following reports: MOVES onroad speciation report11 and MOVES light-duty12 and heavy-
duty5 exhaust emission rate reports.
2 Energy Rates
In MOVES, energy consumption rates (energy use per time) are recorded in the emissionRate
table by fueltype, regulatory class, model year group, process, and operating mode. And for
heavy-duty regulatory classes, adjustments by sourcetype, regulatory class, fueltype and model
year are recorded in the emissionRateAdjustment table. Additional adjustments to energy
consumption are described in the MOVES4 emission adjustment report.23
A full suite of energy rates were first released in MOVES2004 and were developed by binning
second-by-second (1 Hz) data from test programs, including 16 EPA-sponsored test programs
and multiple non-EPA test programs. Details about the data and programs are documented in
MOVES2004 Energy and Emission Inputs report1. Since then, the energy rates in MOVES were
updated to account for several GHG and Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations.
In this chapter, we discuss the energy rates for both light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles. In each
section, relevant regulations are briefly introduced, and the modeling approaches used to
incorporate them into MOVES are explained or referenced.
2.1 Light-Duty Vehicles
In MOVES, light-duty vehicle category includes passenger cars, passenger trucks, and light
commercial trucks. For details about corresponding vehicle weight and HPMS classes, refer to
the MOVES Population and Activity Report.13 For information about operating modes and
vehicle-specific power (VSP) bins, see the MOVES Light Duty Report.12
6
-------
2.1.1 Light-Bui and CAFE Regulations
A number of regulations are relevant for LD energy consumption rats in MOVES. These are
discussed in the sections below.
2,1 i ) i ih *\. le Phast i I Phase 2
Light Duty GHG Phase 1 rule14 covers model years 2012 through 2016, while the Phase 2 rule3
covers model years 2017 through 2025. Both Phase 1 and 2 rules apply to passenger cars and
light trucks. A summary of source types and regulatory class combination that are covered under
LD GHG rules is in Table 2-1. Projected fleet average emission targets are shown in Table 2-2
and Table 2-3.
Table 2-1 A summary of source type and regulatory class combinations covered under LP GHG rules
Source Type (sourceTypelD)
Regulatory Class (regClassID)
passenger cars (21)
Light-duty vehicles (LDV) (20)
passenger trucks (31)
Light-duty Trucks (LDT) (30),
Light Heavy-duty Class 2b and
3 Trucks (LHD2b3) (41 f
light commercial trucks (32)
LDT (30), LHD2b3 (41)a
Table 2-2 Projected fleet-wide emissions compliance levels under the footprint-based CO2 standards (g/mi) -
LD GHG Phase l14
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Passenger Cars
263
346
256
337
247
328
236
312
225
298
Light Trucks
295
286
278
263
250
Table 2-3 Projected fleet-wide emissions compliance levels under the footprint-based CO2 standards (g/mi) -
LD GHG Phase 23
2016
base
2017
2018
2018
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
Passenger Cars
212
202
191
182
172
164
157
150
143
Light Trucks
298
235
285
277
269
249
237
225
214
203
Corns,red Cars and Trucks
r'25G
243
232
222
213
199
180
180
171
183
The footprint-based methodology was used for both LD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules to
generate the projected fleet average emission. Each vehicle has a projected CO2 emission rate
based on its footprint13, and this relationship is captured by footprint curves. Figure 2-1 is an
example of the footprint curve for passenger cars under the LD GHG Phase 2 rule. The
a The LD GHG rules only applies to the Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles (MDPV, GVWR 8,500 to 10,000 lbs)
portion of LHD2b3 vehicles (GVWR 8,500 to 14,000 lbs). The CO2 emission rates for MDPV were previously
updated based on HD GHG rule, thus are not updated with LD GHG rules nor SAFE rules.
b "Footprint" refers to the size of the vehicle, specifically, the product of wheelbase times average track width (the
area defined by where the centers of the tires touch the ground) as explained in the 2020 EPA Automotive Trends
report: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021 -0l/documents/420r21003.pdf
7
-------
footprint-based CO2 emission rates were then weighted by the historical and projected vehicle
sales to generate the fleet average emissions shown in Table 2-2 and Table 2-3.
4M
Figure 2-1. CO2 (g/mile) passenger car standards3
Air conditioning (A/C) systems contribute to vehicle GHG emissions in two ways. First, when
the compressor pumps the refrigerant around the system loop, it adds an extra load to the
powertrain, resulting in an increase in tailpipe CO2 emissions. Second, they contribute directly
to GHG emissions via refrigerant leakage (for example, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) leakage).
Accordingly, there are two types of A/C credits in the LD GHG rules - A/C efficiency credits
and A/C refrigerant credits (aka. leakage credits). Both types of credits are used when
converting projected CO2 compliance target to projected 2-cycle CO2. Projected CO2
compliance targets represent the curve standard numbers, while projected 2-cycle CO2 represent
the actual standards that manufactures need to comply with. The projected 2-cycle CO2 is the
sum of projected CO2 compliance targets, incentives, and credits, where incentives include
advanced technology multipliers and intermediate volume provisions, and credits include off
cycle credit, A/C refrigerant credit, and A/C efficiency credit. Table 2-4 shows the values for
projected CO2 compliance targets, incentives, credits, and projected 2-cycle CO2 emissions for
passenger cars for model years 2016 to 2025. There are similar tables for passenger trucks and
the combined passenger cars and trucks fleet in the LD GHG Phase 1 and 2 rules314.
8
-------
Table 2-4 Projections for fleetwide tailpipe emissions compliance with CO2 standards for passenger cars
(g/mile) - LD GHG Phase 23
Model year
Projected
C02 compli-
ance target
Incentives 402
Projected
achieved
CO,
Credits
Projected 2-
cycle C02
Advanced
technology
multiplier
Intermediate
volume pro-
visions
Off cycle
credit
A/C refrig-
erant
A/C efficiency
2016 (base)
225403
0
0
225
0.4
5.4
4.8
235
2017
212
0.6
0.1
213
0.5
7.8
5.0
226
2018
202
1.1
0.3
203
0.6
9.3
5.0
218
2019
191
1.6
0.1
193
0.7
10.8
5,0
210
2020
182
1.5
0.1
183
0.8
12.3
5.0
201
2021
172
1.2
0.0
173
0.8
13.8
5.0
193
2022
164
0.0
0.0
164
0.9
13.8
5.0
184
2023
157
0.0
0.0
157
1.0
13.8
5.0
177
2024
150
0,0
0.0
150
1.1
13.8
5.0
170
2025
143
0.0
0.0
143
1.4
13.8
5.0
163
However, in MOVES, we used the real-world tailpipe CO2, which is defined in LD GHG rule
Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)15, to represent on-road fleet average CO2 emissions (see
Table 2-5). The real-world tailpipe CO2 was calculated using Equation 2-1 shown below. The
valuel.25 in Equation 2-lis a multiplying factor derived from a 20% gap between test and on-
road MPG for liquid fueled vehicles15. The test refers to NHTSA's CAFE 2-Cycle test (i.e. FTP
and HWFET), while the on-road MPG refers to EPA's 5-cycle test that is used for fuel economy
label (FTP, HWFET, US06, SC03, UDDS)°. We believe that the EPA 5-cycle test is more
representative of real-world driving, and therefore, we converted the 2 cycle CO2 emission to the
real-world CO2 by dividing by 0.8 (a factor of 1.25). This conversion factor is stored in the
"adjustment" column of the EVPopICEAdjustLD table.
Real World Tailpipe C02
= (Projected 2 Cycle C02 — Off Cycle Credit Equation 2-1
— A/C Efficiency Credit) * 1.25
Table 2-5 Projections for the average, real-world fleetwide tailpipe CO2 emissions and fuel economy
associated with the CO2 standards (g/mile)3
Real world tailpipe CO-
Heal WorM FjpI Eccnomy
Model year
(grams pei mile)
mi|oQ pHt ya Ion)
Cars
TiucKs
Cars + trucks
Cars
Tuicks
Cars + trucks
2018 (base)
287
3*1
320
30.9
23.3
27 8
2017
276
378
313
32.2
23 5
28 4
2018
266
373
304
33.5
23 9
29 2
2019
255
294
34.8
24.5
30 2
2020
244
357
284
36,4
24.9
31 3
2021
234
334
269
38.0
26,8
33 -
2022
2^1
318
258
39.9
27.9
34.7
2023
^15
304
244
41,3
29.3
36.4
2024
2>W
28S
233
43.4
30 8
38.1
2025
"<*fi
277
223
45.4
32 1
40.0
2.1.1.2 SAFE Mule
The Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Proposed Rule was issued in August 2018
for model years 2021-2026 to amend existing CAFE and GHG standards for passenger cars and
0 More information on EPA dynamometer drive cycles is available at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-fuel-
emissions-testing/dynamometer-drive-schedules
9
-------
light trucks. The SAFE "Part 1" Final Rule (One National Program) was released in September
2019.16Per which, EPA withdrew the Clean Air Act preemption waiverd for LD vehicles it
granted to California.
The SAFE rule6 was finalized in March 2020, effective on June 29, 2020. The fleet average
targets for light-duty passenger cars and trucks in the SAFE rule are shown separately in the
tables below. We updated energy rates based on the SAFE rule in MOVES3, and details are in
Section 2.1.2 (running energy rates) and in Section 2.1.3 (start energy rates).
Table 2-6 Average fleet estimate of CO2 emission for passenger cars in SAFE6
Avg. of
OEMs' Est.
Model
Requirements
Year
CAMi
CO:
trnpg)
(ji/mi)
201?
39.0
219
2018
40.4
208
2019
41.9
197
2020
43.6
2021
44.2
183
44.9
180
2023
45.6
177
2024
46.3
174
2025
47.0
171
2026
47.7
168
Table 2-7 Average fleet estimate of CO2 emission for passenger trucks in SAFE6
Avg. of
OEMs' Est.
Model
Requirements
Year
1 \i-r
CO.
impg)
1 p'nn)
2017
29.4
295
2018
30.0
2X5
2019
30.5
278
2020
31.1
270
2021
31.6
264
i(p-i
32,1
259
1 2023
32.6
255
2024
33.1
251
2025
331T1
247
2026
34.1
243
2.1.1.3 Revised 2023 and Later indards
The Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards (LD GHG 2023-2026) rule17 tightened the CO2 emission requirements for model years
2023 and later. These standards are expected to increase the fraction of electric vehicles in the
d California Clean Air Act preemption waiver was reinstated in 2023.
10
-------
fleet as described in the M0VES4 vehicle population and activity report,13 and to change the
average energy consumption of the remaining ICE vehicles.
17
Table 2-8 Estimated fleet-wide C02 target levels corresponding to the final standards
Model yoa-
Cais CO.
H'lC'l
Tracks CO.-
1'y mitCi
Fk»t GQit
(g/hnlte)
2023
1Gb
202
20?4
158
222
192
2025
14a
23,'
179
132
1U.'
161
2.1.2 Light-Duty Running Energy Mates for Internal Combustion Engines
This section focuses on running energy rates for light-duty vehicles with internal combustion
engines (ICE). This includes vehicles running on gasoline, diesel and ethanol fuels, including
hybrids.
In MOVES4, the energy rates for motorcycles (MC) and pre-2017 model year light-duty vehicles
(LDV) and light-duty trucks (LDT) are unchanged from MOVES2014. The energy rates for
MC, LDV and LDT are distinguished by fuel types, engine technologies, regulatory classes, and
model years.
Before MOVES2010a, MOVES modelled significantly more detail in the energy rates, which
varied by engine technologies, engine size and more refined loaded weight classes. For
MOVES2010a, the energy rates were simplified to use single energy rates for each regulatory
class, fuel type and model year combination. This was done by removing advanced technology
energy rates and aggregating the MOVES2010 energy rates across engine size and vehicle
weight classes according to the default population in the MOVES2010 sample vehicle population
table. Because this approach used highly detailed energy consumption data, coupled with
information on engine size and vehicle weight for the vehicle fleet that varies for each model
year, year-by-year variability was introduced into the pre-2000 MY aggregated energy rates used
in MOVES2010a and carried into later MOVES versions.
In MOVES4, we updated running energy rates in the emissionRate table for all light-duty
vehicles based on the 2021 EPA automotive trends report18 for MY2017 to 2019.
The effects of the LD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2 rules were modelled by adjusting the energy
rates in previous MOVES versions, as documented in the MOVES2010 and MOVES2014 GHG
and Energy Consumption Rates reports2'19. In MOVES3, we updated energy rates based on the
SAFE final rule6. And in MOVES4, we updated the rates to account for the LD GHG 2023-2026
rule. The main methodology is the same as the one used to incorporate LD GHG rules in
MOVES2014, where the estimated real-world CO2 (or on-road CO2) values developed in the
rulemaking were used as input to update the MOVES rates.
In MOVES4, the real-world CO2 calculation uses CO2 2-cycle g/mile rates, off-cycle credits, and
AJC efficiency credits, as shown in Equation 2-1. Adjustment ratios based on real-world CO2
values estimated in the LD GHG 2023-2026 rule were applied directly to running energy rates in
11
-------
the emissionRate table for all light-duty vehicles (regulatory classes 20 and 30). Those
adjustment ratios vary by model year for model year 2020 to 2050. The adjustment ratios for
MY2050 were applied to model years 2051 and beyond.
MOVES4 also incorporates an adjustment to ICE energy rates that accounts for averaging,
banking, and trading (ABT) with the penetration of electric vehicles (see Section 7 in Emission
Adjustments for Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4 report23). The ABT adjustment results in an
increase in the average CCh/mile for gasoline and diesel vehicles in years when the Inflation
Reduction Act implies higher EV sales fractions, as detailed in the Population and Activity of
Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4 report13
Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3 plot the MOVES4 average CO2 emission rates for motorcycles (MC),
light-duty vehicles (LDV), and light-duty trucks (LDT) across all running operating modes for
model year 1970 to model year 2040. 1960-1969 MY have the same CO2 emission rates as MY
1970.
12
-------
900'
a>
|
O)
(15
ta
eg
O
O
600'
300'
„
' s
~
Reg Class
-*¦ 10-MC
20-LDV
-- 30-LDT
1980
2040
2000 2020
Model Year
Figure 2-2. Base running rates in MOVES4 for atmospheric CO2 from gasoline motorcycle, light-duty
vehicles and light-duty trucks averaged over nationally representative operating mode distributions.
Reg Class
20-LDV
-+¦ 30-LDT
1980
2000
2020
2040
Model Year
Figure 2-3. Base running rates in MOVES4 for atmospheric CO2 from diesel light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks averaged over nationally representative operating mode distributions.
13
-------
3*H)5-
2e+05-
ls+05*
~ oe+oo-t
2 Je+05-
l-=rK>5_
Oe+GQ-
4=+05"
i
js+v5"
i
i
S
L_
2e+Q5~
•
O
•
i
i
le+05-
1
Oe+OD-
t
i
i-
¦
i
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 23 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 35 37 38 39 40
opModelB
fuelTypeDesc • Diesel Fuel • Gasoline
Figure 2-4. Running energy rates by operating mode (opModelD) for motorcycles (MC), light-duty vehicles
(LDV) and light-duty trucks (LDT) for model year 2025 in MOVES4.
14
-------
*
¦
jS+Vw"
*
2e+05"
1
o
•H
ls+05"
" i— '. !~
Je+Oi-
•
_j_
2r~! 5~
r4
ls+05"
<
•
m
Ge+Ofr
w
4=r+vi"
i
i
2
2e+05"
i_
1
0
•
15+0:5"
! 5—C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 26 37 2S 23 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 35 40
opModelD
fuelTypeDesc • Diesel Fuel • Gasoline
Figure 2-4 plots the MOVES4 running energy rates by operating mode for motorcycles (MC),
light-duty vehicles (LDV), and light-duty trucks (LDT) for model year 2025.
For gasoline LDV, MOVES uses the same relative trend between energy rates and operating
modes shown in
15
-------
*
¦
jS+Vw"
m
2e+05"
1
O
ls+05"
" i— '. !~
Je+Oi-
•
\m\
2r-I5~
r4
13
le+05"
<
•
w
Ge+Ofr
»
45+v:r
1
1
s
2e+05"
i_
'
0
•
15+0:5"
! 5—C
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 IS 17 12 19 20 21 22 23 24 15 26 37 2S 23 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 35 40
opModelD
fuelTypeDesc • Diesel Fuel • Gasoline
Figure 2-4 starting with the 1999 model year. For gasoline LDT, the relative trend between
energy rates and operating modes is constant from MY 2001 to MY 2060. Flowever, as shown in
Figure 2-2, the absolute magnitude of gasoline LDV and LDT CO2 emission rates across all
operating modes decreases sharply beginning in MY 2012 due to the 2012-2016 LD GHG rule14
Diesel LDV and LDT vehicles, starting in model year 2012, have the same relative energy rate
(for start and running) and operating mode trend as the corresponding MY gasoline vehicles. The
diesel energy rates are 2.9% lower than the gasoline running energy rates. The 2.9% difference
accounts for the higher carbon content in diesel fuel (Table 4-1) as compared to gasoline fuel,
such that the CO2 emission rates are equivalent for 2012 MY+ gasoline and diesel vehicles. The
model year trends for diesel LDV and LDT CO2 emission rates are similar to gasoline vehicles
beginning in MY 2012 (as shown in Figure 2-3).
The energy rates for ethanol (E-85) are assumed to have equivalent energy consumption as
gasoline vehicles. However, the differences in carbon content result in different CO2 emission
rates as discussed in Section 4.1.
The motorcycle running energy rates have not been updated since MOVES2014. The energy
rates were developed initially for MOVES20041 for three weight categories (<500 lbs, 500-700
lbs, and >700 lbs), and three engine size categories (<170 cc, 170-280 cc, and > 280 cc). When
the energy rates were consolidated into a single energy rate by model year for all motorcycles in
MOVES2010a2, this resulted in an average increase in motorcycle energy rates between MY
1991 and MY 2000 due to a population shift to larger motorcycles20. We assumed the same
distributions of motorcycles starting in MY 2000 going forward to MY 2060 (2.9% <170cc,
16
-------
4.3% 170-280cc, and 92.8%>280 cc, with 30% between 500-700 lbs, and 70% > 700 lbs), thus
the motorcycle energy running rates for MY 2000 through MY 2060 remain constant.
2.1.3 Light-Duty Running Energy Rates for Electric Vehicles
Energy rates for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in MOVES4 have been significantly updated
from MOVES3. There is limited experimental data available at the 1 HZ level, which is the
resolution that MOVES requires. Therefore, to develop these rates, nine BEVs representative of
the 2019 fleet, based on 2019 sales estimates, were modelled in EPA's ALPHA (Advanced
Light-Duty Powertrain and Hybrid Analysis) tool.21 The vehicles modelled include the Chevy
Bolt, Tesla Model 3, Honda Clarity (BEV), Nissan Leaf, Fiat 500e, Tesla Model S, BMW i3,
VW e-Golf, and Tesla Model X. Inputs for each vehicle were compiled from the EPA test car
list22, manufacturer data, press releases, and other internet sources. See Appendix C for a
comprehensive table of the values used for these vehicles.
Each vehicle was simulated in ALPHA over three repeats of the EPA UDDS and HWFET28
cycles, as well as two additional sets of drive cycles in order to increase the sample sizes for the
high operating modes. The first set included the UDDS, LA92, US06, and Worldwide
harmonized Light vehicles Test Cycles (WLTC). The second set was a custom-built cycle
intended to fully populate the MOVES operating mode bins. It consisted of 50 hard
accelerations based on a standard 0-78.5 mph acceleration curve but varied slightly with a
maximum speed ranging from 75mph to 80mph to enable rate collection for a variety of speeds
and vehicle-specific power bins (VSPs). Data during deceleration back to 0 mph was ignored
because the cycle was intended only to sample high-power operation, not represent real-world
operation.
Typically, the operating mode would be assigned using power at the wheels as calculated by
ALPHA based on the individual vehicle characteristics. However, since MOVES assigns same
road load coefficients to BEVs as ICE vehicles, that approach meant the resulting energy
consumption values were biased too high. To address this issue, VSP was calculated using the
road loads in MOVES and the values for velocity and acceleration reported by ALPHA, in
assigning the operating mode. Once these adjustments had been made and the methodology
updated, the energy rates calculated by ALPHA were much more closely aligned with the data
from the test car list.22 More details about parameters and results in ALPHA modeling can be
found in Appendix C.
Energy rates in MOVES4 were derived by calculating the sales-weighted rate across all of the
modelled vehicles in ALPHA. The sale numbers can be found in Table C-l in Appendix C. This
approach accounts for variations in BEV engineering, increases the sample size in each operating
mode, and helps make the energy rates less sensitive to differences in vehicle characteristics.
In theory, a similar methodology could be applied to passenger trucks. However, there is not
enough information available about EV trucks on the market or in the test car list to properly
represent these vehicles in ALPHA. Therefore, the rates for light-duty electric trucks and
LHD2b3 trucks (regulatory classes 30 and 41) were scaled from the light-duty electric car rates
assuming that energy gained from regenerative braking and energy used during all other
17
-------
operation scale linearly with vehicle mass. The specific scaling factor comes from the
fixedMassFactor column of the MOVES sourceUseTypePhysics table.13 The scaling factor for
converting LDV rates to LDT rates is 1.2624, while the scaling factor to convert LDV rates to
LHD2b3 is 3.3811.
The energy rates for MY2019 passenger cars and passenger trucks are shown below in Figure
2-5 and Figure 2-6, the blue bars represent the energy rates for BEV passenger cars in MOVES4,
and the orange bars represent the energy rates for ICE passenger cars in MOVES4. Similarly, in
Figure 2-6, the blue bars represent the energy rates for BEV passenger trucks in MOVES4, and
the orange bars represent the energy rates for ICE passenger trucks in MOVES4. The negative
values shown in the plots are regenerative braking energy rates. For passenger cars and trucks,
BEV energy rates for each operating mode have lower values than ICE energy rates.
4e+05-
3e+05
.2 2e+05
o
>, 1e+05-
0e+00
EV Car
ICE Car
0 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 30 33 35 37 38 39 40
Operating Mode
Figure 2-5. MOVES4 base energy rates for electric and ICE model year 2019 passenger cars by operating
mode
18
-------
EV Truck
ICE Truck
Operating Mode
Figure 2-6. MOVES4 base energy rates for electric and ICE model year 2019 passenger trucks by operating
mode
The adjustments to the light-duty BEV running energy rates are documented in the MOVES
Emission Adjustments report,23 including adjustments for ambient temperature, air conditioning,
and for charging and battery efficiency. MOVES4 does not model light-duty fuel cell vehicles.
2.1.4 Light-Duty Start Energy Rates
LD BEVs are modelled with zero start energy consumption. ICE vehicles, on the other hand,
require energy to start the internal combustion engine, especially when the engine has been
sitting ("soaking") for a long time or in low ambient temperatures.
Figure 2-7 displays the energy rates of gasoline motorcycles (MC), light-duty vehicles (LDV),
and light-duty trucks (LDT) for starts by operating mode for model year 2020 in MOVES4. As
shown, start energy rates increase for operating modes with longer soak times as defined in Table
2-9. These fractions are used for all model years and fuel types of light-duty vehicles and
motorcycles. Additionally, the start energy rates were adjusted in MOVES for increased fuel
consumption required to start a vehicle at cold ambient temperatures. The temperature effects on
start energy consumption are documented in the MOVES Emission Adjustments report23 and the
2004 Energy Report1 .
To account for the Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards (LD GHG 2023-2026) rule,17 adjustment ratios based on the rule's estimated
real-world CO2 were also applied to start energy rates for all light-duty vehicles (regclasses 20
and 30). Adjustment ratios vary by model year from 2020 to 2050. The adjustment ratio for
MY2050 were applied to model years 2051 and beyond. These adjustment ratios for start energy
19
-------
rates are the same as for running energy rates for each model year and are directly applied in
EmissionRate table in the default MOVES database.
2000"
1500"
1000"
500-
0
1500-
1COO-
500-
i o -.
IOOO-"
1500"
1000-
500-
0 -.
104 105
opModelD
fiielTypeDesc • Diesel Fuel • Gasoline
Figure 2-7. Start energy rates by operating mode (opModelD) for motorcycles (MC), light-duty vehicles
(LDV) and light-duty trucks (LDT) for model year 2025.
Table 2-9. Fraction of energy consumed at start of varying soak lengths compared to the energy consumed at
Operating
Mode
Description
Fraction of energy
consumption
compared to cold
start
101
Soak Time < 6 minutes
0.013
102
6 minutes <= Soak Time < 30 minutes
0.0773
103
30 minutes <= Soak Time < 60 minutes
0.1903
104
60 minutes <= Soak Time < 90 minutes
0.3118
105
90 minutes <= Soak Time <120 minutes
0.4078
106
120 minutes <= Soak Time <360 minutes
0.5786
107
360 minutes <= Soak Time < 720 minutes
0.8751
108
720 minutes <= Soak Time
1
Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9 depict the start CO2 emission rates for a cold start (opModel08) across
model years for gasoline and diesel light-duty vehicles. Motorcycles have a sharp decrease in
CO2 emission starts in 1991 because MOVES assumes 'controlled' energy starts starting with
MY 1991 as documented in the MOVES2004 energy report1. The start rates for LDV and LDT
have a large decrease starting in MY 2012 that follows the same trend as the running rates.
20
-------
Reg Class
-*¦ 10-MC
20-LDV
-- 30-LDT
1980 2000 2020 2040
Model Year
Figure 2-8. Cold start CO2 emission rates (opMode 108) for gasoline motorcycle, light-duty vehicles, and
light-duty trucks
1980 2000 2020 2040
Model Year
Figure 2-9. Cold start CO2 emission rates (opMode 108) for diesel light-duty vehicles, and light-duty trucks
21
-------
2.2 Heavy-Duty Vehicles
MOVES has heavy-duty running energy rates for five fuel types: diesel, gasoline, compressed
natural gas (CNG), battery electric (BEV) and hydrogen fuel cell (FCEV). In MOVES3, we
expanded the use of CNG to most vehicles in heavy heavy-duty (HHD) regulatory class instead
of limiting it just to the Urban Bus regulatory class. In MOVES4, we added the ability to model
heavy-duty BEV and FCEV vehicles and CNG long-haul combination trucks. Note that the
output for BEV and FCEV is combined as the electricity fueltype in MOVES4.
The development of the heavy-duty energy rates by regulatory class, fuel type, and model year
for internal combustion engine technologies are documented in the Heavy-duty Exhaust Emision
Rates Report.5 These rates include the reductions from the HD GHG Phase 1 and Phase 2
standards which are summarized here and discussed in more detail in the Heavy-duty Exhaust
Emision Rates Report. Energy consumption values for heavy-duty electric vehicles are
documented in Section 2.2.1 of this report.
The HD GHG Phase 1 standards4 began with the 2014 model year and increase in stringency
through 2018. The standards were set to continue indefinitely after 2018. The program divides
the diverse truck sector into three distinct categories:
• Line haul tractors (largest heavy-duty tractors used to pull trailers, i.e., semi-trucks)
• Heavy-duty pickups and vans (3/4- and 1- ton trucks and vans)
• Vocational trucks (buses, refuse trucks, concrete mixers, etc)
The program set separate standards for engines and vehicles, and set separate standards for fuel
consumption, CO2, N2O, CH4 and HFCs.®
The HD GHG Phase 1 rule was incorporated into MOVES through three key elements. These
include (a) revised running emission rates for total energy, (b) new aerodynamic coefficients and
weights, (c) auxiliary power units (APUs), which largely replace extended idle in long-haul
trucks and were added as a new process in MOVES. The Phase 1 reductions vary by fuel type,
regulatory class, and model year. The same reductions are applied to CNG vehicles as diesel
vehicles because they have the same standards. The effect of the HD GHG Phase 1 rule on
running emissions rates for total energy and auxiliary energy and criteria emission rates are
documented in the MOVES Heavy-duty Exhaust Emision Rates Report.5 The revised
aerodynamic coefficients for MY 2014 and later heavy-duty trucks are documented in the
MOVES Population and Activity Report.13
In MOVES3, we updated the heavy-duty vehicle energy rates to incorporate the HD GHG Phase
2 rule.24 The Phase 2 reductions in energy rates vary by fuel type, regulatory class, and model
year like the Phase 1 rule, but also by source type. For details regarding these updates, please
refer to MOVES Heavy-duty Exhaust Emision Rates Report.5
In MOVES4, we added the ability to model heavy-duty BEV and FCEV vehicles as described
below.
e HFCs are not modeled in MOVES, and the N20 and CH4 standards are not considered forcing on emissions.
22
-------
2.2.1 Heavy-Duty Batten Electric and Fuel Cell Energy Rates
M0VES4 includes the addition of heavy-duty electric vehicles. In the heavy-duty sector, EVs
can have either battery electric or fuel cell powertrains, referred to as battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), respectively.
Light-duty EV energy consumption was estimated using EPA's ALPHA model, based on the
average energy consumption of a number of real BEV passenger cars and SUVs (see Section
2.1.3). Unfortunately, there is not enough data for heavy-duty BEVs or FCEVs to implement a
similar approach in MOVES.
Therefore, we used a more general approach based on an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) of
electric vehicles to diesel vehicles. The EER allows MOVES to calculate EV energy
consumption relative to diesel energy consumption, which is much better understood. While this
approach may be new in a modeling context, CARB has used the EER to express EV energy
consumption as well.25 The energy consumption of an HD EV can be calculated based on the
following Equation 2-2:
Enevgy digggi
EnergyEV = — Equation 2-2
fcfcti
The EER for an electric vehicle would generally be greater than 1, indicating EVs are more
efficient than their diesel counterparts. An EER of 2 means an electric vehicle is twice as
efficient as its diesel counterpart, and therefore, consumes half the energy. While an EER can be
formulated relative to any ICE vehicle, we use diesel as the reference because it is the dominant
fuel type in the heavy-duty sector.
Table 2-10 lists the EERs used for each heavy-duty source type. Appendix D provides a more
detailed description of the data sources and derivation of these EER values.
Table 2-10. Heavy-Duty EV Energy Efficiency Ratios
sourceTypelD
Source Type Name
EER
41
Other Buses
2.0
42
Transit Buses
3.3
43
School Buses
3.5
51
Refuse Trucks
2.9
52
Single Unit Short-Haul Trucks
3.5
53
Single Unit Long-Haul Trucks
2.0
54
Motor Homes
2.0
61
Combination Short-Haul Trucks
2.6
62
Combination Long-Haul Trucks
2.0
23
-------
For BEVs, this approach is implemented by first duplicating diesel energy consumption rates for
all electric vehicles in the EmissionRate table. The EER is applied in the
EmissionRateAdjustment table.
The energy efficiency of BEVs is based on energy consumed by the vehicle and does not account
for losses from charging. EER based on energy from the electrical grid would be lower based on
charging efficiency, but this is accounted for elsewhere in MOVES as described in the MOVES
Emission Adjustments Report. Adjustments to account for energy used in heating and cooling
the cabin and passenger compartment are documented in that same report.23
In addition, heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles (FCEVs) have a lower efficiency ratio than their BEV
counterparts. However, an identical EER is implicitly applied to both BEVs and FCEVs in
MOVES, since BEV and FCEV vehicles are aggregated as the electricity fuel type by the time
the EERs are applied. To account for this, the energy consumption rates for FCEVs in the
EmissionRate table are scaled up by a ratio of 1.6, based on values in GREET 202163 as
explained in Appendix D, to ensure the final energy consumption rates for FCEVs are
representative of their real operation.
The EmissionRateAdjustment table can support EER data by source type, regulatory class,
model year. Due to a lack of available data from our research and literature study, we define
EER only by source type and apply the same ratio for all heavy-duty regulatory classes and
model years. The only exception is regulatory class 41 (Class 2b3), which is modelled based on
the ALPHA runs done for light-duty. Their EmissionRateAdjustment is one, which means
mathematically there is no adjustment applied.
This approach has its limitations. The most important being the implicit assumption that relative
power demand across operating modes is the same between ICE and EV vehicles. While
regenerative braking is included in the estimation of EERs, MOVES4 cannot explicitly model
regenerative braking (a negative energy consumption for the braking operating modes) for
heavy-duty EVs like it can for light-duty.
Heavy-duty EV energy consumption is assumed to be zero for starts, consistent with the
approach for light-duty.
This approach is used for running energy consumption, but not for hotelling energy consumption
for combination long-haul trucks. For hotelling, we assume EV combination long-haul trucks
will use shore power from the facility at which they hotel, or otherwise keep the main battery off.
Energy consumption for shore power is discussed in the following section.
2,2.1 ding Shore Power Energy Consumption
MOVES4 introduced the capability to model combination long-haul trucks of non-diesel fuel
types, including fuel cells. Because MOVES estimates energy demand on the grid for all electric
vehicles, MOVES4 also introduces energy consumption for combination trucks which hotel
24
-------
overnight plugged into the AC power at the facility - known in the industry as using shore
power.
In MOVES4, shore power is represented by a new process assigned to processID 93 and is
represented by energy consumption rates for the operating mode 203. In MOVES3, operating
mode 203 covered both shore power and battery usage for hotelling. However, in MOVES4,
battery activity is moved to operating mode 204. Details are available in the Population and
Activity Report.13
Combination trucks of any fuel type can use shore power if they have the correct equipment.
Because the shore power is used to run accessories in the cabin, we assume that the energy
consumption for all fuel types using shore power is the same. Likewise, because the energy
consumption is related to accessory use, we use the same energy consumption rate for all model
years.
There is little data on shore power energy consumption, in large part because shore power usage
is still relatively rare - operators typically opt for auxiliary power units. Frey and Kuo (2009)26
collected energy consumption data from hotelling trucks from late 2006 through early 2008,
including engine-on idling, APU usage, and shore power for model year 2006 combination
trucks.
Using their published energy consumption values, we derived an EER of shore power relative to
diesel engine-on energy consumption, consistent with our approach to modeling running energy
consumption for EVs. Frey and Kuo report data for both a mid-temperature and high-temperature
scenario, with EERs that evaluate to 12.05 and 3.75, respectively.
We assume that the representative real-world average EER for shore power is 8, roughly
averaging the EER values reported by Frey and Kuo. Therefore, the shore power energy
consumption rate in MOVES4 is l/8th the energy consumption for a 2006 model year Class 8
tractor extended idling. This works out to 12,135.6 kilojoules per hour, applied to all fuel types
and model years.
3 Nitrous Oxide (N2O) Emission Rates
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a powerful, long-lived greenhouse gas and is formed as a byproduct in
virtually all combustion processes27 and in catalytic exhaust emission aftertreatment systems.
MOVES estimates N2O emission rates for start and running exhaust. In general, the nitrous oxide
(N2O) emission rates in MOVES are estimated more coarsely than other pollutants. In
MOVES2014 and earlier versions, running (N2O) emission rates were estimated for one single
operating mode (opModelD 300 = all running). In MOVES3, we updated the N2O emission rates
to use the 23 operating modes that we use for most other pollutants (opModelDs 0 through 40),
however, for most regulatory classes, model years, and fuel types, the average running emission
rate is simply copied into the more detailed running exhaust operating modes. Start emissions
continue to use a single operating mode ("Starting," opModelD = 100). The N2O start and
running exhaust emission rates do not vary by vehicle age and are stored in the EmissionRate
table.
25
-------
asoline Vehicles
As detailed in the MOVES2010a energy and greenhouse gas emission rate report2, the
gasoline N2O emission rates are derived from emission measurements on the Federal Test
Procedure (FTP)28 and supplemented with N2O emission rates from the Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 report42.
The running and start emissions are derived from composite FTP emission rates by using Bag 2
of the FTP to estimate the average running emission rates (in grams per hour), and then
estimating the start emissions as the remainder of the composite emissions.
Table 3-1 lists the FTP composite N2O emission rates, calculated running rates (in grams
per hour) and start rates (in grams per start). The heavy-duty gasoline vehicle emission
rates are used for all heavy-duty regulatory classes (LHD2b3, LHD45, MHD, and HHD).
The N2O emission rates are applied in MOVES using model year group ranges that map to
technology distinctions. Table B-l through Table B-4 in Appendix B provide the distribution of
gasoline emission control technologies by model year. The running and start emission rates in
Table 3-1 are multiplied by the model-year-specific technology penetrations to provide model-
year-specific emission rates in MOVES. The values in Table B-l through Table B-4 are taken
directly from the Inventory of the US GHG Emissions and Sinks, Annex Tables A-84 through A-
8742, except for a few revisions noted in the footnotes of the tables. The resulting N2O base rates
for gasoline vehicles are shown in Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-2.
26
-------
Table 3-1 Composite FTP, running, and start N2O emissions for gasoline vehicles
Vehicle Type /
FTP Composite
Running
Start
Control Technology
(2 / mile)
(2 / hour)
(2/ start)
Motorcycles
Non-Catalyst Control
0.0069
0.0854
0.0189
Uncontrolled
0.0087
0.1076
0.0238
Gasoline Passenger Cars
EPA Tier 2
0.0050
0.0399
0.0221
LEVs
0.0101
0.0148
0.0697
EPA Tier 1
0.0283
0.2316
0.1228
EPA Tier 0
0.0538
0.6650
0.1470
Oxidation Catalyst
0.0504
0.6235
0.1379
Non-Catalyst Control
0.0197
0.2437
0.0539
Uncontrolled
0.0197
0.2437
0.0539
Gasoline Light-Duty Trucks
EPA Tier 2
0.0066
0.0436
0.0325
LEVs
0.0148
0.0975
0.0728
EPA Tier 1
0.0674
0.6500
0.2546
EPA Tier 0
0.0370
0.2323
0.1869
Oxidation Catalyst
0.0906
0.8492
0.3513
Non-Catalyst Control
0.0218
0.2044
0.0845
Uncontrolled
0.0220
0.2062
0.0853
Gasoline Heavy-Duty Vehicles
EPA Tier 2
0.0134
0.1345
0.0486
LEVs
0.0320
0.3213
0.1160
EPA Tier 1
0.1750
1.7569
0.6342
EPA Tier 0
0.0814
0.8172
0.2950
Oxidation Catalyst
0.1317
1.3222
0.4773
Non-Catalyst Control
0.0473
0.4749
0.1714
Uncontrolled
0.0497
0.4990
0.1801
27
-------
0.02-
a>
|
O)
(15
£
0.01
0.00-
Reg Class
-*¦ 10-MC
20-LDV
-- 30-LDT
1980
2000
2020
2040
Model Year
Figure 3-1. Base running rates in MOVES4 for N2O from gasoline motorcycle, light-duty vehicles and light-
duty trucks averaged over nationally representative operating mode distributions.
a;
E
s
a1
(O
o
Reg Class
41-LHD2b3
42-LHD45
46-MHD67
47-HHD8
1980 2000 2020 2040
Model Year
Figure 3-2. Base running rates in MOVES4 for N2O from gasoline heavy-duty vehicles averaged over
nationally representative operating mode distributions.
28
-------
3.2 Diesel Vehicles
3.2.1 Light-Duty Diesel
For light-duty diesel vehicles, we estimated N2O emission rates using the FTP composite
emission rates reported in the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-
2006 report42, and the algorithm described above for gasoline vehicles. The emission rates by
control technology used for light-duty diesel vehicles and light-duty trucks are shown in Table
3-2. We used the distribution of light-duty diesel technology types by model year in Table B-4 to
estimate model year specific N2O emission rates in MOVES. The model year specific N2O rates
are shown in Figure 3-3.
Table 3-2 Composite FTP, running, and start N2O emissions for light-duty diesel vehicles
Vehicle Type /
FTP Comp
Running
Start
Control Technology3
(e / mile)
(g / hour)
(el start)
Diesel Passenger Cars
Advanced
0.0010
0.0168
0.0010
Moderate
0.0010
0.0168
0.0010
Uncontrolled
0.0012
0.0202
0.0012
Diesel Light-Duty Trucks
Advanced
0.0015
0.0253
0.0015
Moderate
0.0014
0.0236
0.0014
Uncontrolled
0.0017
0.0286
0.0018
a Table B-4 defines the model year group definitions of the diesel control technologies groups
29
-------
(15
£
8e-04
6e-04
4e-04
2e-04
Oe+OO
1 r-
\ r
1
Reg Class
20-LDV
-+¦ 30-LDT
1980
2040
2000 2020
Model Year
Figure 3-3. Base running rates in MOVES4 for N2O from diesel passenger cars and passenger trucks
averaged over nationally representative operating mode distributions.
3.2.2 Heavy-Duty Diesel
3.2.2.1 MY 1960-2003 Heavy-Duty Diesel
For heavy-duty diesel vehicles, the N2O emission rates by technology for MY 1960-2003 were
taken from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006 report42
shown in Table 3-3. These emission rates are used in conjunction with the technology to model
year mapping in Table B-4 to estimate model-year-specific N2O emission rates in MOVES. The
heavy-duty diesel emission rates are used for all heavy-duty diesel regulatory classes including:
LHD2b3, LHD45, MHD, HHD, and Urban Bus. In addition, glider vehicles (regClassID 49) use
the "Advanced" emission rate in Table 3-5 for model years 1996-2060.
Table 3-3 Composite FTP, running, and start N2O emissions for model year 1960-2003 heavy-duty diesel
vehicles
Vehicle Type /
FTP Comp
Running
Start
Control Technology3
(2/mile)
(el hour)
(el start)
Diesel Heavy-Duty Vehicles
Advanced
0.0049
0.0828
0.0051
Moderate
0.0048
0.0809
0.0049
Uncontrolled
0.0048
0.0809
0.0049
a Table B-4 defines the model year group definitions of the diesel control technologies groups
30
-------
3.2.2.2 MY 2004-2060 Heavy-Duty Diesel
Diesel exhaust aftertreatment technologies are known to increase N2O from diesel trucks. For
MOVES4, we updated heavy-duty diesel N2O emission rates based on information reported in
recent emission studies as summarized in Table 3-4. The heavy-duty diesel emission rates are
classified according to engine model year and aftertreatment technology, including diesel
particulate filters (DPF) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems. Since net emissions for
gasoline and light-duty diesel vehicles are expected to remain relatively low (see Figure 3-1,
Figure 3-2, Figure 3-3, and Figure 3-5), we did not update those rates and they continue to be
based on the older data and methodology described in the sections above.
Preble et al. (2019)29 sampled individual heavy-duty vehicle exhaust plumes at the entrance to
the Caldecott Tunnel near Oakland, California and at the Port of Oakland for multiple years. At
the entrance of the Caldecott Tunnel, heavy-duty trucks were traveling up a 4% grade between
30 and 75 mph. At the Port of Oakland, the trucks were traveling on a level roadway at around
30 mph. The data from Preble et al. (2019) is also used to update the NH3 and NO/NO2 fractions
as discussed in the MOVES Heavy-duty Exhaust Emission Rates Report.30 Quiros et al. (2016)31
sampled six heavy-duty diesel tractors hauling a mobile emissions laboratory trailer. They
sampled the vehicles along six routes intended to represent goods movement in Southern
California. The confidence intervals reported for Quiros et al. (2016) in Table 3-4 were
calculated from the average N2O emission rate associated with each of the six routes, which
ranged between 0.27 (near-port route) to 0.97 (urban route) g/kg-fuel. The Advanced
Collaborative Emissions Study (ACES)32'33 tested four model year 2007 and three model year
2010 heavy-duty diesel engines using an engine dynamometer.
Each of the studies demonstrate that model year 2010 and later diesel vehicles have significantly
higher N2O emission rates than earlier models of heavy-duty vehicles. N2O is an unintended
byproduct formed within the selective catalytic reduction and ammonia oxidation catalysts
aftertreatment systems used to control NOx and NH3 34'35'31 To assure that these systems do not
produce excessive N2O emissions, the Phase 1 Heavy-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule implemented
an N2O emission standard on the FTP cycle of 0.1 g/hp-hr for 2014 and newer engines,36which is
roughly equivalent to 0.6 g/kg-fuel. We summarized manufacturer submitted certification data
for heavy-duty engines between model year 2016 and 202037 in Table 3-4, which shows that the
average FTP cycle average N2O emission rates is two times below the fuel-specific equivalent
Phase 1 standard.
For the SCR-equipped vehicles, there is significant variability in the N2O emission rates among
the different studies, likely due to different operating conditions. The fuel-based rate reported in
Quiros et al. (2016) varied significantly across different road types, and Preble et al. (2019)
measured significantly higher SCR-equipped N2O emission rates at the high load conditions of
the Caldecott Tunnel compared to the more moderate conditions of the Port of Oakland.
31
-------
Table 3-4. Fuel-based N2O emission rates (± 95% Confidence Intervals, if available) from heavy-duty diesel
Study
Description
Sample
Size
Aftertreatment
Engine
Model
Year
N20 emission
rate (g/kg)
Preble et al.
(2019)29
Caldecott Tunnel near
Oakland California,
Plume-Capture, Sample
Years: 2014, 2015, 2018
1447
DPF + SCR
2010-2018
0.93 ±0.13
744
DPF
2007-2009
0.01 ±0.01
346
DPF Retrofit
1994-2006
0.01 ±0.02
183
No DPF
2004-2006
0.00 ±0.03
433
No DPF
1965-2003
0.00 ±0.09
Preble et al.
(2019)29
Port of Oakland, Sample
Year: 2015
300
DPF + SCR
2010-2016
0.44 ±0.11
866
DPF
2007-2009
0.06 ±0.01
11
No DPF
2004-2006
0.07 ±0.06
Quiros et al.
(2016)31
Six good movements
routes in Southern
California sampled using
mobile laboratory
4
DPF + SCR
2013-2014
0.51 ±0.28
(0.27 to 0.97)
1
DPF (Hybrid
Diesel)
2011
0.03 ±0.01
1
DPF
2007
0.06 ±0.06
Khalek et al.
(2013)33
Advanced Collaborative
Emissions Control Study,
engine dynamometer
3
DPF + SCR
2011
0.26 ±0.48
(16-hour cycle)
0.38 ±0.59
(FTPA)
Khalek et al.
(2009)32
4
DPF
2007
0.05 ± 0.03
(16-hour cycle)
0.07 ± 0.07
(FTP)
EPA
Certification
Data (2020)37
Heavy-duty FTP Transient
Certification Test
60
DPF + SCR
2016-2020
0.34
(FTP Transient)
0.34 (SETB
Steady-State)
A Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
B Supplemental Emission Test (SET)
For developing N2O emission rates, we chose to use the fuel-based rates from the Port of
Oakland collected by Preble et al. (2019)29 because the DPF+SCR rates fell within the range of
the other DPF+SCR fuel-based rates, and the DPF-only rates were similar to the other reported
studies.
To develop MOVES heavy-duty diesel N2O emission rates by regulatory class, model year, and
operating mode, we multiplied the MOVES3 heavy-duty diesel vehicle fuel-consumption rates
by regulatory class, model year, operating mode (Fuel RatesRegiMY,0p) by the Preble et al.
(2019) fuel-based N2O emission rates (FERModei Year Group) listed in Table 3-4, as shown below
in Equation 3-1.
ERReg,MY,age,op ~ Fuel Rd-teSRegMY,op * ^^Afodel Year Group Equation 3-1
Figure 3-4 shows example N2O emission rates for the LHD2b3 and HHD regulatory classes for
model year 2017. Even though the fuel-based emission rate is the same, the N2O gram/hour rate
32
-------
is higher for the HHD regulatory class due to the higher fuel consumption rates. The N2O
emission rates for model years 2018 and later were set equal to the rates for 2017.
30-
D
O
O)
QJ
ro
L_
C
o
(/)
u)
'E
(U
O
20-
10-
0
LHD2b3
-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
HHD8
ll
0 1 11 1213141516212223242527282930333537383940 0 1 11 1213141516212223242527282930333537383940
Operating Mode
Figure 3-4. N2O running emission rates (g/hour) by operating mode for model year 2017 LHD2b3 and HHD
Figure 3-5 shows heavy-duty diesel N2O rates by regulatory class, averaged over nationally
representative operating mode distributions, in grams per mile.
33
-------
Reg Class
¦ 41-LHD2b3
¦ 42-LHD45
46-MHD67
¦ 47-HHD8
48-Urban Bus
49-Gliders
1980 2000 2020 2040
Model Year
Figure 3-5. Base running rates in MOVES4 for N2O from diesel heavy-duty vehicles averaged over nationally
representative operating mode distributions.
We evaluated for N2O start emissions from the data collected in the ACES engine dynamometer
study by comparing the FTP cycle (40 minute cycle with one cold start and one hot start) and the
16-hour cycle (one cold and one hot-start over a 16-hour cycle).28 The N2O emissions from both
the 2011 and 2007 engines were higher in the FTP than the 16-hour cycle (Table 3-4), but a
paired-test showed that the difference was not statistically significant (p-value of 0.08 and 0.12,
respectively). Because the start emissions appear to make a negligible contribution to the total
tailpipe N2O emissions, we estimate zero N2O start emission rates for model year 2004-2060
heavy-duty diesel vehicles.
MOVES does not include estimates of N2O from extended idle and auxiliary power unit exhaust
processes. Overall, we anticipate the N2O from these processes to be low, in part because
auxiliary power units are not anticipated to be equipped with SCR systems. Future versions of
MOVES could consider incorporating N2O emission from extended idling and auxiliary power
unit exhaust as more data become available.
3.3 Alternative-Fueled Vehicles
MOVES includes N2O emission rates for alternative fuels, including E85 and compressed-
natural gas fueled vehicles. The N2O emission rates were based on limited data from the Sources
and Sinks report.42 In MOVES, the N2O emission rates for E85-fueled vehicles are set to be the
same as gasoline vehicles.
Heavy-duty vehicles fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG) use the emission rates reported in
Table 3-5. These rates remain unchanged from the numbers reported for MOVES2010a2. The
composite emission rate was obtained from the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
34
-------
Sinks: 1990-200642, and disaggregated into running and starts using the same relative running
and start splits as heavy-gasoline vehicles.
Table 3-5. N2O emission rates for CNG-fueled heavy-duty vehicles in MOVES
FTP Comp
(g/mile)
Running
(g/hour)
Starts
(g/start)
0.175
1.6797
0.6636
4 Carbon Dioxide ission Rates
4,1 Carbon Dioxide Calculations
MOVES does not store carbon dioxide emission rates in the emission rate tables (e.g., CCh/mile
or CCh/hour operation), but calculates carbon dioxide emissions from total energy consumption
as shown in Equation 4-1.
/44\
C02 = Total Energy Consumed x Carbon Content x Oxidation Fraction x I — I Equation 4-1
Carbon content is expressed in grams of carbon per kJ of energy consumed. Oxidation fraction is
the fraction of carbon that is oxidized to form CO2 in the atmosphere. A small mass percentage
of fuel is emitted as carbon monoxide, organic gases and organic carbon. Currently, MOVES
assumes an oxidation fraction of 1 for all the hydrocarbon-based fuels. The value (44/12) is the
molecular mass of CO2 divided by the atomic mass of carbon.
The carbon content and oxidation fractions used to calculate CO2 emissions are provided in
Table 4-1. The carbon content values used in MOVES were developed for MOVES20041 based
on values derived from the life-cycle model GREET. MOVES does not model upstream
emissions, thus, the carbon content for electricity (whether from BEVs or FCEVs) is zero.
35
-------
Table 4-1. Carbon content and oxidation fraction by fuel subtype
fuelSubtypelD
fuelTypelD
Fuel Subtype
Carbon
Content
(g/KJ)
Oxidation
Fraction
10
1
Conventional Gasoline
0.0196
1
11
1
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
0.0196
1
12
1
Gasohol (E10)
0.01982
1
13
1
Gasohol (E8)
0.01982
1
14
1
Gasohol (E5)
0.01984
1
15
1
Gasohol (El5)
0.01980
1
20
2
Conventional Diesel Fuel
0.02022
1
21
2
Biodiesel Blend
0.02022
1
22
2
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel
(FTD100)
0.0207
1
30
3
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
0.0161
1
40
4
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
0.0161
1
50
5
Ethanol
0.0194
1
51
5
Ethanol (E85)
0.0194
1
52
5
Ethanol (E70)
0.0194
1
90
9
Electricity
0
0
4.2 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions
CO2 equivalent is a combined measure of greenhouse gas emissions weighted according to the
global warming potential of each gas, relative to CO2. Although the mass emissions of CH4 and
N2O are much smaller than CO2, the global warming potential is higher, which increases the
contribution of these gases to the overall greenhouse effect. CO2 equivalent is calculated from
CO2, N2O and CH4 mass emissions according to Equation 4-2.
C02 equivalent = C02 x GWPCC,2 + CH4 x GWPCHi + N20 x GWPN2q Equation 4-2
MOVES uses 100-year Global Warming Potentials (GWP) for a 100-year timescale, listed in
Table 4-2. and stored in the pollutant table of the MOVES default database. The GWP values for
methane and nitrous oxide were updated in MOVES2014 with the values used in the 2007 IPCC
Fourth Assessment Report (AR4)38, which is consistent with values used in the LD GHG Phase 2
rule3 and the HD GHG Phase 2 rule24.
36
-------
Table 4-2.100-year Global Warming Potentials used in MOVES
Pollutant
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Methane (CH4)
25
Nitrous Oxide (N20)
298
Atmospheric CO2
1
5 Fuel Consumption Calculations
MOVES reports fuel consumption in terms of energy use, but not in terms of volume or mass in
the output run results. However, MOVES calculates fuel usage in terms of volume and mass
within the refueling39 and sulfur dioxide emission calculators, respectively.11
MOVES uses energy content and the density of the fuel to calculate fuel volume, as presented in
Equation 5-1 and the values in Table 5-1.
Fuel (gallons) = Energy (KJ) x (__L_) (A) x (fuJensity) Equation 5-1
The fuel density and the energy content values are stored in the fuelType and fuelSubType
tables, respectively. Fuel density is classified according to the more general fuel types, and
energy content varies according to fuel subtype. Because MOVES reports energy content by
fueltype, rather than fuelsubtype, the average of the energy content can be calculated for each
fueltype using the energy content of each fuel subtype using the respective fuel subtype market
share stored in the fuelSupply table. The derivation of the fuelSupply table is documented in the
MOVES technical report on fuel supply defaults40.
37
-------
Table 5-1. Fuel density and energy content by fuel type and subtype
fuelTypelD
fuelSubtypelD
fuelSubtypeDesc
Fuel Density
(g/gallons)
Energy Content (KJ/g)
1
10
Conventional Gasoline
2829
43.488
1
11
Reformulated Gasoline (RFG)
2829
42.358
1
12
Gasohol (E10)
2829
41.696
1
13
Gasohol (E8)
2829
42.027
1
14
Gasohol (E5)
2829
42.523
1
15
Gasohol (El5)
2829
40.877
2
20
Conventional Diesel Fuel
3203
42.869
2
21
Biodiesel Blend
3203
42.700
2
22
Fischer-Tropsch Diesel (FTD100)
3203
43.247
3
30
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG)
NULL
48.632
4
40
Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)
1923
46.607
5
50
Ethanol
2944
26.592
5
51
Ethanol (E85)
2944
29.12
5
52
Ethanol (E70)
2944
31.649
9
90
Electricity
NULL
NULL
38
-------
Appendices
Appendix A. Timeline of Energy and nissioiis in MOVES
• MOVES20041
o Released with a full suite of energy, methane, rates to allow estimation of fuel
consumption and GHG emissions,
o Energy rates developed at a fine level of detail by vehicle attributes including
classes for engine technologies, engine sizes, and loaded weight classes. The
emission rates were created by analyzing second by second (1 Hz) resolution
data from 16 EPA test programs covering approximately 500 vehicles and 26
non-EPA test programs covering approximately 10,760 vehicles,
o "Holes" in the data were filled using either the Physical Emission Rate
Estimator (PERE)41 or interpolation,
o Energy consumption at starts increases at temperatures < 75F
• MOVES2009
o Updates of Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and methane (CH4) emission rates
¦ Based on an enlarged database of Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
emission tests and the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and Sinks: 1990-200642
o Energy start rates adjusted for soak time
• MOVES2010
o Heavy-duty energy rates replaced based on new data and analysis using scaled
tractive power (STP) methodology5
o Light-duty rates updated to include 2008-2011 model year Corporate Average
Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards for light trucks
• MOVE S2010a2
o Updates to the MOVES database to reflect new data and projections for 2008
and newer light-duty energy rates
¦ Model year 2008-2010 vehicle data
¦ Model year 2011 Fuel Economy (FE) final rule projections
¦ Model year 2012-2016 LD GHG Phase 1 rule14
¦ Corrections to model year 2000+ light-duty diesel energy start rates
o Modifications to the organization of energy rates in MOVES database (DB)
¦ Improved consistency between energy rates and other MOVES
emission rates.
¦ Redefined energy rate structure
¦ Removed engine size classes, and consolidated the loaded weight
classes to a single weight class for each regulatory class
¦ Removed unused engine technologies and emission rates from the
MOVES DB
o Updates to the methane algorithm such that methane is calculated as a fraction
of total hydrocarbons (THC)
¦ MOVES2010 methane and THC emission rates used to derive
methane/THC ratios
39
-------
• MOVES2014
o Medium- and heavy-duty energy rates for model year 2014 and later updated
to account for the Phase 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and
Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and
Vehicles4
o Light-duty energy rates for model year 2017 and later updated to account for
the Light-duty EPA and NHTSA greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards
(LD GHG Phase 2 FRM)3
• MOVE S3
o The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years
2021-2026 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks6 was incorporated for MY 2017-
2026 and forward
o Updates to heavy-duty vehicle energy rates to account for the HD GHG
Phase2 rule
o Updated the 2010-2060 HD baseline energy rates
¦ HD diesel and CNG vehicles rates were updated based on the
manufacturer-run heavy-duty in-use testing (HDIUT) program
¦ Baseline heavy-duty gasoline energy rates for 2010-2060 were updated
from an EPA conducted in-use measurement program5
• MOVES4
o The Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas
Emission Standards (LD GHG 2023-2026) rule17 was incorporated, updating
rates for light-duty ICE vehicles for MY2020 -2060
o Light-duty and heavy-duty BEV penetrations were updated as documented in
the MOVES Population and Activity Report13
o Energy rates for Light duty BEVs were updated based on BEV modeling
instead of using the same rates as gasoline vehicles
o Energy rates for heavy-duty BEVs were added using EER approach based on
diesel rates
o Additional updates relevant to GHGs and energy such are described in the
MOVES4 Emission Adjustments report.23 These include adjustments to
account for charging efficiency, battery deterioration, cabin temperature
control and the impact of electric vehicle fractions on the effective standards
for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles,
o Heavy-duty diesel emission rates were updated to account for newer studies
which show the significant impacts that selective catalytic reduction (SCR)
systems have onN20 emissions (Section 3.2.2.2). The nitrous oxide (N2O)
emission rates for light-duty diesel and all gasoline and CNG vehicles remain
the same. Carbon content and energy content updates
o HD fuel cell EV EER updates
o Kept constant the HD GHG Phase 2 energy reductions for regulatory class 41
stored in the EmissionRateAdjustment table for MY2025 and later at the
MY2024 level
40
-------
Appendix B. Emission Control Technology Phase-In used for N2O
Emission Rate Calculations
Table B-l Control Technology Assignments for Gasoline Passenger Cars (Percent of VMT). Reproduced with
exceptions from Table A-84 from Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006
Model
Years
Non-Catalyst
Control
Oxidation
Catalyst
EPA Tier 0
EPA Tier 1
LEVs
EPA Tier 2
1973-1974
100%
1975
20%
80%
1976-1977
15%
85%
1978-1979
10%
90%
1980
5%
88%
7%
1981
15%
85%
1982
14%
86%
1983
12%
88%
1984-1993
100%
1994
60%
40%
1995
20%
80%
1996
1%
97%
2%
1997
1%
97%
3%
1998
0%
87%
13%
1999
0%
67%
33%
2000
44%
56%
2001
3%
97%
2002
1%
99%
2003
0%
87%
13%
2004
0%
41%
59%
2005
38%
62%
2006+
0%
100%a
a We assume 100% EPA Tier 2 emission rates for model years 2006 and forward which differs from the US GHG
Emissions and Sinks.
41
-------
Table B-2 Control Technology Assignments for Gasoline Light-Duty Trucks (Percent of VMT) Reproduced
with exceptions from Table A-85 from Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006.
Model
Years
Not
Controlled
Non-
Catalyst
Control
Oxidation
Catalyst
EPA
Tier 0
EPA
Tier 1
LEVs
EPA
Tier 2
1973-1974
0%
100%
1975
30%
70%
1976
20%
80%
1977-1978
25%
75%
1979-1980
20%
80%
1981
95%
5%
1982
90%
10%
1983
80%
20%
1984
70%
30%
1985
60%
40%
1986
50%
50%
1987-1993
5%
95%
1994
60%
40%
1995
20%
80%
1996
100%
1997
100%
1998
80%
20%
1999
57%
43%
2000
65%
35%
2001
1%
99%
2002
10%
90%
2003
<1%
53%
47%
2004
72%
28%
2005
38%
62%
2006+
100%a
a We assume 100% EPA Tier 2 emission rates for model years 2006+, which differs from the US GHG Emissions
and Sinks.
42
-------
Table B-3 Control Technology Assignments for Gasoline Heavy-Duty Vehicles (Percent of VMT) Reproduced
with exceptions from Table A-86 from Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006.
Model
Years
Not
Controlled
Non-
Catalyst
Control
Oxidation
Catalyst
EPA
TierO
EPA
Tier 1
LEVs
EPA
Tier 2
Pre-1982
100%
1982-
1984
95%
5%
1985-
1986
95%
5%
1987
70%
15%
15%
1988-
1989
60%
25%
15%
1990-
1995
45%
30%
25%
1996
25%
10%
65%
1997
10%
5%
85%
1998
96%
4%
_
1999
78%
22%
_
2000
54%
46%
_
2001
64%
36%
_
2002
69%
31%
_
2003
65%
30%
5%
2004
5%
37%
59%
2005
23%
77%
2006+
100%a
a We assume 100% EPA Tier 2 emission rates for model years 2006+, which differs from the US GHG Emissions
and Sinks.
43
-------
Table B-4 Control Technology Assignments for Diesel Highway Vehicles and Motorcycles. Reproduced with
exceptions from Table A-87 from Inventory of US GHG Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006.
Vehicle Type/Control Technology
Model
Years
Diesel Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Trucks
Uncontrolled
1960-1982
Moderate control
1983-1995
Advanced control
1996-
2006+a
Diesel Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses
Uncontrolled
1960-1982
Moderate control
1983-1995
Advanced control
1996-2004
Motorcycles
Uncontrolled
1960-1995
Non-catalyst controls
1996-2006+
a In MOVES, we continue using the 1996-2006 rates for all light-duty model years beyond 2006. The 2013 US GHG
Emissions and Sinks updates the Advanced Control to up to 2011 model year vehicles, and adds a new category of
diesel (aftertreatment diesel). However, the N20 emission rates of aftertreatment diesel are unchanged from
advanced control.43
44
-------
Appendix €, 1 \ U fllU1 ira meters aiui suits
To develop energy rates for light-duty battery electric vehicles, BEVs representative of the 2019
fleet, based on 2019 sales figures, were modelled in EPA's ALPHA (Advanced Light-Duty
Powertrain and Hybrid Analysis) tool using values from the EPA test car list, manufacturer data,
press releases, and other internet sources. These values are listed in the tables below.
45
-------
Table C-l: Vehicle Parameters for ALPHA Modeling
V ehicle
2019
Sales 44
Battery
Size
(kWh)
Battery
Voltage
Paral
lei
Series
Total
Cells
Max
Torque
Max
Torque
Units
Max
RPM
Max
Power
Max
Power
Units
Wheel
Diameter
(in)
Final
Drive
Gear
Ratio
V ehicle
Mass
A
Coeff
B
Coeff
C
Coeff
Chevy
Bolt45
16,313
60
35046
3
96
288
360
J
8810
150
kW
17
7.05
3875
28.4
0.2018
0.0195
Tesla
Model 3
47
154,840
53.6
36047
3
86
256
38948
lb-fit
9000
282
Hp
18
9.04
3875
36.01
0.1289
0.0167
Honda
Clarity
BEV49
742
25.5
32350
3
88
264
222
lb-fit
9500
161
Hp
18
9.333
4250
25.41
0.2338
0.0176
Nissan
Leaf51
12,365
40
350
2
96
192
236
lb-fit
10390
147
Hp
16
8.19
3500
25.89
0.3449
0.0195
Fiat
500E 52
632
24
364
1
100
100
147
lb-fit
9500
110
Hp
15
9.59
3250
24.91
0.2365
0.0182
Tesla
Model S
53
15,090
85
320
6
74
444
440
J
13700
400
kW
19
9.34
4500
40.218
0.0604
0.0171
BMW i3
54
4,854
42.2
350
3
67
201
184
lb-fit
10000
181
Hp
19
9.67
3375
29
0.297
0.0178
VWe-
Golf55
4,863
35.8
323
3
88
264
214
lb-fit
12000
134
Hp
16
9.747
3750
32.8
0.3849
0.0156
Tesla
Model
X 56
19,425
100
350
5
96
480
660
J
12300
400
kW
20
9.34
5250
40.32
0.099
0.0214
Jaguar i-
Pace
2,594
90.2
389
4
108
432
696
J
13000
294
kW
20
9.04
5000
35.706
0.6402
0.0177
MOVES
Values
35.174
0.2012
0.0221
46
-------
Overall range, highway mileage, and city mileage were calculated for all selected vehicles in
ALPHA, and the output was then compared to published values to determine how well each
vehicle was being modeled. This is represented via the percent difference between the two
values. These percentages were then averaged by sales within each category to observe how well
ALPHA modeled the 2019 fleet as a whole. Those values are listed in the table below.
Table C-2: Comparison of Published and Modelled Range
Vehicle
Published
Test
Test
ALPHA
ALPHA
ALPHA
RangeDiff
UDDSDiff
HWYDiff
Range
Car
UDDS
Car
HWY
Range
UDDS
HWY
Chevy
238
182.2
157.4
193.89
207.62
142.17
-18.53%
13.95%
-9.68%
Bolt
Tesla
220
197.3
176.6
225.28
204.77
167.73
2.40%
3.79%
-5.02%
Model 3
Honda
89
179.6
146.5
94.79
211.74
153.29
6.51%
17.90%
4.63%
Clarity
BEV
Nissan
150
174
141.1
121.52
209.08
133.98
-18.99%
20.16%
-5.05%
Leaf
Fiat
84
172.9
147.8
108.9
221.86
176.28
29.64%
28.32%
19.27%
500E
Tesla
271
151.7
140.1
241.54
165.7
140.13
-10.87%
9.23%
0.02%
Model S
BMW i3
153
177.7
145.5
144.75
211
143.47
-5.39%
18.74%
-1.40%
VWe-
125
174.4
154
113.55
191.9
135.09
-9.16%
10.03%
-12.28%
Golf
Tesla
305
140
130.5
238.89
151.37
119.09
-21.68%
8.12%
-8.74%
Model X
Jaguar i-
246
114.1
102.9
198.2
150.5
107.9
-19.44%
31.88%
4.84%
Pace
Fleet
9.51%
10.81%
4.73%
Sale-
Weighted
Avg
Diffs
47
-------
Appendix D. Derivation of Heavy-Duty I \ bid FCEY Energy Efficiency
Ratios
As explained in Section 2.2.1, heavy duty energy consumption rates for BEVs in MOVES were
calculated using ratios to the energy consumption of similar diesel vehicles. EER data is
available in the literature from both simulations and empirical measurements for a variety of
source types across common uses for those source types. The available EER data describes
energy efficiency at the scale of trips or days of operation rather than individual operating modes
(e.g., cruising in a specified speed band). Because it is based on real-world data collection, this
data implicitly includes differences in operational behavior across source types, such as differing
driving and idling behaviors that may impact the observed efficiency ratios.
The energy efficiency of BEVs is based on energy consumed by the vehicle and does not account
for losses from charging. EER based on energy from the electrical grid would be lower based on
charging efficiency, but this is accounted for elsewhere in MOVES as described in the MOVES
emission adjustment report. Similarly, energy used in heating and cooling the cabin and
passenger compartment is accounted for with later adjustments.23
EER data is shown in Table D-l, Table D-2, and Table D-3. Each table contains a different set of
source types, grouped by HPMS class.
Table D-l:Bus EER values from the literature by source type.
sourceTypelD
Source Type Name
EER
Data source
Other notes
42
Transit Buses
3.5
ADVISOR simulations57
Average of transit and inter-city
bus from Table 7, transit bus
from Table 15. Year used: 2030.
42
Transit Buses
4.6
Altoona58, CARB59, NREL60
Fuel efficiency was calculated
from "Average" cycles when
available, otherwise the average
of Manhattan, Orange County,
and UDDS cycles. EER was
calculated by dividing average
fuel efficiency of all selected EVs
by average fuel efficiency of all
selected ICEVs.
42
Transit Buses
3.7
FASTSim modeling with in-use
GPS speed traces61
Transit buses (9.1 m to 12.1 m
long) from Figure 5.
42
Transit Buses
1.6
Equations for tractive power
demand, etc. informed by NREL
Fleet DNA database62
Class 7 city bus from Figure 4c
42
Transit Buses
3.0
Autonomie (from GREET 2021)63
Model year 2020
43
School Buses
1.8
Equations for tractive power
demand, etc. informed by NREL
Fleet DNA database62
Class 6 school bus from Figure
4c.
43
School Buses
3.8
Autonomie (from GREET 2021)63
Model year 2020
48
-------
Table D-2: Heavy-duty EERs from the literature by source type
sourceTypelD
Source Type Name
EER
Data source
Other notes
51
Refuse Trucks
4.2
Autonomie (from GREET
2021)63
Model year 2020
51
Refuse Trucks
1.5
Equations for tractive
power demand, etc.
informed by NREL Fleet
DNA database62
Class 8 refuse truck from Figure 4c
52
Single Unit Short-
4.8
Autonomie (from GREET
Average of Classes 8, 6, and 4
Haul Trucks
2021)63
vocational trucks model year 2020
52
Single Unit Short-
Haul Trucks
3.8
ADVISOR simulations57
Average of MD delivery truck (city)
and HD short-haul truck (city) from
Table 7, delivery truck from Table 15.
Year used: 2030.
52
Single Unit Short-
4.9
Measurements reported in
Average of two CalHEAT Class 5 Step
Haul Trucks
CARB ACT Rule AppG64
Vans, one CalHEAT Class 3 Sprinter
Van, and two SD Class 3 Shuttle Vans.
52
Single Unit Short-
3.5
Measurements reported in
Original data from Figure 16 from
Haul Trucks
ORNL/NRELFrito Lay
study65
nine ICEVs and 10 Class 6 BEVs. EER
calculated from the linear fits,
averaged across daily distances every
5 mi from 10-65 mi.
52
Single Unit Short-
Haul Trucks
2.8
FASTSim66
Class 4 parcel delivery current fuel
efficiencies from Figure 25.
52
Single Unit Short-
1.6
Equations for tractive
Average of Class 5 linen delivery van,
Haul Trucks
power demand, etc.
informed by NREL Fleet
DNA database62
Class 5 food delivery truck, Class 4
parcel delivery van, Class 3 food
delivery truck, Class 3 bucket truck
from Figure 4c.
52
Single Unit Short-
2.9
VECTO simulation in Scania
Class 8 regional and urban delivery
Haul Trucks
LCA report67
truck from "Fuel and energy
consumption" subsection of "Use
phase" section.
53
Single Unit Long-
2.0
Calculation of traction
Class 8 long-haul truck, single unit or
Haul Trucks
power at 65 mph and
assumption about diesel
engine efficiency of 49%68.
combination not specified. BEV
traction energy from Table 2, ICEV
fuel efficiency from page 4.
49
-------
Table D-3: Combination truck EER values in the literature by source type.
sourceTypelD
Source Type Name
EER
Data source
Other notes
61
Combination
Short-Haul Trucks
2.4
FASTSim66
Class 8 short haul truck current fuel
efficiencies from Figure 25.
61
Combination
3.8
Autonomie (from
Short-Haul Trucks
GREET 2021)63
Model year 2020
61
Combination
1.5
Equations for tractive
Class 7 food delivery truck and Class 8
Short-Haul Trucks
power demand, etc.
informed by NREL Fleet
DNA database62
port drayage tractor (both run <200
mi/day on average, which is short-haul in
MOVES) from Figure 4c.
62
Combination Long-
2.0
Calculation of traction
Haul Trucks
power at 65 mph and
assumption about
diesel engine efficiency
of 49%68.
Class 8 long-haul truck, single unit or
combination not specified. BEV traction
energy from Table 2, ICEV fuel efficiency
from page 4.
62
Combination Long-
Haul Trucks
2.0
FASTSim66
Average of Class 8 long haul (750 mi),
long haul (500 mi), and short haul (which
has a range of >200 mi/day and thus
could be long haul in MOVES) current
fuel efficiencies from Figure 25.
62
Combination Long-
2.1
Autonomie (from
Haul Trucks
GREET 2021)63
Model year 2020
62
Combination Long-
Haul Trucks
1.8
ADVISOR simulations57
Average of HD long-haul truck (highway)
from Table 7 and long-haul truck from
Table 15. Year used: 2030.
Table D-4 shows EERs averaged for each available source type with equal weighting given to
each reference. References were not available for other buses and motor homes, so their EERs
were copied from single unit long-haul trucks due to similar expected driving behavior - mostly
long trips on highways. Only two references were available for school buses, which were two of
the five references used for transit buses. Given the similar operational behavior of these two
source types, the school buses' average EER was calculated from the same EERs used for transit
buses, swapping the EERs from their common references.
Table D-4: Average EER values from the literature by source type.
sourceTypelD
Source Type Name
Average EER
41
Other Buses
2.0
42
Transit Buses
3.3
43
School Buses
3.5
51
Refuse Trucks
2.9
52
Single Unit Short-Haul Trucks
3.5
53
Single Unit Long-Haul Trucks
2.0
54
Motor Homes
2.0
61
Combination Short-Haul Trucks
2.6
62
Combination Long-Haul Trucks
2.0
In addition, heavy-duty fuel cell vehicles (FCEV) have a lower efficiency ratio than their BEV
counterparts. However, in MOVES, by the time the EERs are applied, BEV and FCEV vehicles
have been aggregated within the electricity fuel type, which means an identical EER is implicitly
50
-------
applied to both powertrain types. To account for this, the energy consumption rates for FCEVs in
EmissionRate are scaled up for FCEVs by a ratio of 1.25 to ensure the final energy consumption
rates for FCEVs are representative of their real operation.
The multiplier for the FCEV emission rates was derived from the relative energy consumption
for heavy-duty fuel cell and battery electric vehicles as published by Islam, et al. in 2022.69 The
authors used Autonomie to estimate the fuel savings of various alternative fuels for heavy-duty
vehicles and show that FCEVs consume, on average, 1.6 times more energy than comparable
BEVs. This is consistent with values estimated in GREET 2022.70
We adjusted this value down to account for the fact that MOVES calculates an energy
consumption for charging and battery losses and for HVAC usage as documented in the MOVES
adjustment report. FCEVs do not have batteries chargeable by grid energy, so we removed that
effect by a typical charging and battery efficiency value of 15%. We found two sources
regarding the relationship between FCEV energy consumption and temperature. The first, an
ICCT study on FCEV tractor-trailer fuel economy,71 showed that FCEV energy consumption
does not change with ambient temperature, while the second, a real-world study of BEV and
FCEV bus energy demand,72 showed that FCEV energy demand changes with temperature but to
a lesser extent than BEVs. Therefore, we also applied an 8% correction to the FCEV multiplier
to remove the national average temperature adjustment applied in MOVES. The final result is an
FCEV energy demand multiplier of 1.25.
51
-------
6 References
1 USEPA (2005). Energy and Emissions Inputs. EPA-420-P-05-003. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US
Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. March, 2005.
2 USEPA (2012). Updates to the Greenhouse Gas and Energy Consumption Rates in MOVES2010a. EPA-420-R-
12-025. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August,
2012.
3 USEPA (2012). 2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy Standards (77 FR No. 199, October 15, 2012)
4 USEPA (2011). Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty
Engines and Vehicles (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011)
5 USEPA (2023). Exhaust Emission Rates of Heavy-Duty Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-027 . Office
of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August, 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-onroad-technical-reports
6 USEPA (2020). The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021-2026 Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks (85 FR No.84, April 30, 2020)
7 USEPA (2016). Final Rulemaking to Establish Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency
Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles - Phase 2: Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-420-R-
16-900, August 2016.
8 USEPA (2021). Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
(86 FR 74434, December 30, 2021)
9 USEPA (2021). Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Compression-Ignition Engines in
MOVES3.0.2. EPA-420-R-21-021 Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Ann Arbor, MI. September 2021. https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-onroad-technical-reports
10 USEPA (2010). Exhaust Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling — Spark-Ignition. NR-OlOf. EPA-420-
R-10-019. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. July
2010. https://www.epa.gov/moves/nonroad-technical-reports
11 USEPA (2023). Speciation of Total Organic Gas and Particulate Matter Emissions from Onroad Vehicles in
MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-006 . Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023 . https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-onroad-technical-reports
12 USEPA (2023). Exhaust Emission Rates for Light-Duty Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-028 .
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. November 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-onroad-technical-reports
13 USEPA (2023). Population and Activity of Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-005 Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023.
14 USEPA (2010). Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards; Final Rule (75 FR No. 88, May 7, 2010)
15 USEPA (2012). Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. EPA-420-R-12-016. Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI.August,2012.
16 USEPA (2019). The Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule Part One: One National Program (84
FRNo.188, September 27, 2019)
52
-------
17 USEPA (2021). Revised 2023 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards
(86 FR 74434, December 30, 2021)
18 US Environmental Protection Agency. 2021 EPA Automotive Trends Report. Data available at
www.epa. gov/automotive-trends/explore-automotive-trends-data Accessed June 15, 2022.
19 USEPA (2015,). Greenhouse Gas and Energy Consumption Rates for On-road Vehicles: Updates for
MOVES2014. EPA-420-R-15-003. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency.
Ann Arbor, MI. October 2015.
20 USEPA (2009). Draft MOVES2009 Highway Vehicle Population and Activity Data. EPA-420-P-09-001. Office
of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August, 2009.
21 USEPA (2020). Advanced Light-Duty Powertrain and Hybrid Analysis (ALPHA) Tool. Office of Transportation
and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. December, 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/advanced-light-dutv-powertrain-and-hvbrid-
analvsis-alpha#overview
22 USEPA (2021). Data on Cars used for Testing Fuel Economy. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US
Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. 2021. https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economv-
data/data-cars-used-testing-fuel-economv
23 USEPA (2023). Emission Adjustments for MOVES4. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental
Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023.
24USEPA (2016). Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines
and Vehicles—Phase 2. (81 FRNo.206, October 25,2016)
25 California Air Resources Board. (2018). "Battery Electric Truck and Bus Energy Efficiency Compared to
Conventional Diesel Vehicles." Available online: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-
11/180124hdbevefficiencv.pdf.
26 H. Christopher Frey & Po-Yao Kuo (2009) Real-World Energy Use and Emission Rates for Idling Long-Haul
Trucks and Selected Idle Reduction Technologies, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 59:7, 857-
864.
27 Wallington, T. J. and P. Wiesen (2014). N20 emissions from global transportation. Atmospheric Environment, 94,
258-263.
28 USEPA (2020). Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Testing. Dynamometer Drive Schedules.
https://www.epa.gOv/vehicle-and-fuel-emissions-testing/dvnamometer-drive-schedules#vehicleDDS
29 Preble, C. V., R. A. Harley and T. W. Kirchstetter (2019). Control Technology-Driven Changes to In-Use Heavy-
Duty Diesel Truck Emissions of Nitrogenous Species and Related Environmental Impacts. Environ Sci Technol, 53
(24), 14568-14576.
30 USEPA (2023). Exhaust Emissions from Heavy-Duty Vehicles in MOVES4. Office of Transportation and Air
Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023.
31 Quiros, D. C., J. Smith, A. Thiruvengadam, T. Huai and S. Hu (2017). Greenhouse gas emissions from heavy-duty
natural gas, hybrid, and conventional diesel on-road trucks during freight transport. Atmospheric Environment, 168
(Supplement C), 36-45.
32 Khalek, I., T. Bougher and P. Merrit (2009). Phase 1 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study. CRC
Report: ACES Phase 1.
33 Khalek, I. A., M. G. Blanks and P. M. Merritt (2013). Phase 2 of the Advanced Collaborative Emissions Study.
CRC Report: ACES Phase 2. Coordinating Research Council, Inc. & Health Effects Institute. November 2013.
34 Majewski, W. A. (2005). Selective catalytic reduction. Ecopointlnc. Revision.
53
-------
35 Khalek, I. A., M. G. Blanks, P. M. Merritt and B. Zielinska (2015). Regulated and unregulated emissions from
modern 2010 emissions-compliant heavy-duty on-highway diesel engines. Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, 65 (8), 987-1001.
36 USEPA (2011). Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-
Duty Engines and Vehicles (76 FR 57106, September 15, 2011)
37 USEPA (2020). Annual Certification Data for Vehicles, Engines, and Equipment. Heavy-Duty Highway Gasoline
and Diesel Certification Data Retrieved November, 25, 2020.
https://www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economv-data/annual-certification-data-vehicles-engines-and-eauipment
38 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ar4 wg2 full report.pdf
39 USEPA (2023). Evaporative Emissions from Onroad Vehicles in MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-023 Office of
Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-technical-reports.
40 USEPA (2023). Fuel Supply Defaults: Regional Fuels and the Fuel Wizard in MOVES4. EPA-420-R-23-025.
Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. August 2023.
https://www.epa.gov/moves/moves-technical-reports.
41 USEPA (2005). Fuel Consumption Modeling of Conventional and Advanced Technology Vehicles in the Physical
Emission Rate Estimator (PERE). EPA420-P-05-001. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. US Environmental
Protection Agency. Ann Arbor, MI. February, 2005.
42 USEPA (2008). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, DC 20460. April 15, 2008.
43 USEPA (2013). Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2013. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460. April 15, 2015.
44 Energy, U. D. (2020, January). Maps and Data - U.S. Plug-in Electric Vehicle Sales by Model. Retrieved from
Alternative Fuels Data Center: https://afdc.energv.gov/data/10567
45 Chevrolet Bolt EV - 2019. (n.d.). Retrieved from Chevrolet:
https ://media. Chevrolet, com/media/us/en/chevrolet/vehicles/bolt-ev/2019 .tab 1 .html
46 2019 Chevrolet Bolt EV - Specifications and Price, (n.d.). Retrieved from EV Specifications:
https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/18al90
47 2019 Tesla Model 3 Standard Range RWD - Specifications. Retrieved from EV Specifications:
https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/bc5896
48 Halvorson, B. (2019, March 2). 2019 Tesla Model 3. Retrieved from The Car Connection:
https://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/tesla model-3 2019
49 2019 Honda Clarity Electric, (n.d.). Retrieved from Honda:
https://mygarage.honda.com/s/find-honda#midAZC6F3KGNW
50 2019 Honda Clarity Fuel Cell Specifications & Features. (2019, April 10). Retrieved from Honda Auto News:
https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda-automobiles/releases/release-0748feefcc68437a94892cl60e085aa7-2Q19-
clarity-fuel-cell-specifications-features
51 2019 Leaf. (n.d.). Retrieved from Nissan: https://www.nissanusa.com/content/dam/Nissan/us/vehicle-
brochures/2019/2019-nissan-nissan-leaf-brochure-en.pdf
54
-------
52 2019 Fiat 500e Specifications, (n.d.). Retrieved from Fiat:
https://media.fcanorthamerica.com/download.do?id=20137
53 2019 Tesla Model S Standard Range - Specifications and Price, (n.d.). Retrieved from EV Specifications:
https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/dl4199
54 The new 2019 BMW i3120Ah and i3s 120 Ah. (2018, September 28). Retrieved from BMW Group:
https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/usa/article/detail/T0285420EN US/the-new-2019-bmw-i3-l20ah-and-i3s-
120ah?language=en US
55 2019 e-Golf Technical Specifications, (n.d.). Retrieved from Volkswagen:
https://media.vw.com/assets/documents/original/9221-2019eGolfTechnicalSpecifications.pdf
56 2019 Tesla Model XPerformance (SR) - Specifications and Price. (n.d.). Retrieved from EV Specifications:
https://www.evspecifications.com/en/model/befbc2
57 Burke, A., & Sinha, A. (2020). Technology, Sustainability, and Marketing of Battery Electric and Hydrogen Fuel
Cell Medium-Duty and Heavy-Duty Trucks and Buses in 2020-2040. UC Davis: National Center for Sustainable
Transportation. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2H993FJ Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7s25d8bc.
58 LTI Bus Research and Testing Center (2012-2020). Bus Testing Report, https://www.altoonabustest.psu.edu/bus-
list.aspx
59 California Air Resources Board. (2018). Battery Electric Truck and Bus Energy Efficiency Compared to
Conventional Diesel Vehicles, http://ww2.arb.ca. gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appg.pdf
60 Johnson, C., Nobler, E., Eudy, L., and Jeffers, M. (2020). "Financial Analysis of Battery Electric Transit Buses".
National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
https://afdc.energy.gOv/files/u/publication/financial analysis be transit buses.pdf
61 Kotz, A. J., Miller, E., Watson, A., Kelly, K.J., "Transit Bus Electrification Evaluation from GPS Speed Traces."
62 Gao, Z., Lin, Z., Davis, S. C., & Birky, A. K. (2018). Quantitative Evaluation of MD/HD Vehicle Electrification
using Statistical Data. Transportation Research Record, Vol. 2672(24) 109-121.
63 GREET 2021, Argonne National Laboratory, https://greet.es.anl.gov/ Accessed 10/12/2021
64 CARB ACT Rule Appendix G for CalHEAT data.
http://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/barcu/regact/2019/act2019/appg.pdf
65 Robert Prohaska, Mike Simpson, Adam Ragatz, Kenneth Kelly, Kandler Smith and Kevin Walkowicz, Field
Evaluation of Medium-Duty Plug-in Electric Delivery Trucks, Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-66382, December
2016. https://afdc.energy.gOv/files/u/publication/field evaluation md elec delivery trucks.pdf.
66 Chad Hunter, Michael Penev, Evan Reznicek, Jason Lustbader, Alicia Birky, and Chen Zhang, Spatial and
Temporal Analysis of the Total Cost of Ownership for Class 8 Tractors and Class 4 Parcel Delivery Trucks,
Technical Report NREL/TP-5400-71796, September 2021. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fv21osti/71796.pdf
67 Burul, D., Algesten, D., Life cycle assessment of distribution vehicles - Battery electric vs diesel driven, Scania
report, 2021.
68 Zhao, H., Wang, Q., Fulton, L., Jailer, M., & Burke, A. (2018). A Comparison of Zero-Emission Highway
Trucking Technologies. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2FQ9TS7 Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1584b5z9.
69 Ehsan Sabri Islam, Ram Vijayagopal, Aymeric Rousseau. "A Comprehensive Simulation Study to Evaluate
Future Vehicle Energy and Cost Reduction Potential", Report to the US Department of Energy, Contract ANL/ESD-
22/6, October 2022.
55
-------
70 Wang, Michael, Elgowainy, Amgad, Lu, Zifeng, Baek, Kwang H., Bafana, Adarsh, Benavides, Pahola T.,
Burnham, Andrew, Cai, Hao, Cappello, Vincenzo, Chen, Peter, Gan, Yu, Gracida-Alvarez, Ulises R., Hawkins,
Troy R., Iyer, RakeshK., Kelly, Jarod C., Kim, Taemin, Kumar, Shishir, Kwon, Hoyoung, Lee, Kyuha, Lee,
Uisung, Liu, Xinyu, Masum, Farhad, Ng, Clarence, Ou, Longwen, Reddi, Krishna, Siddique, Nazib, Sun, Pingping,
Vyawahare, Pradeep, Xu, Hui, and Zaimes, George. Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in
Technologies Model ® (2022 .Net). Computer Software. USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy (EERE). 10 Oct. 2022. Web. doi:10.11578/GREET-Net-2022/dc.20220908.2
71 Basma, Hussein and Rodriguez, Felipe. "Fuel cell tractor-trailers: Technology overview and fuel economy".
International Council on Clean Transportation. July 2022. Available online: https://theicct.org/wp-
content/uploads/2022/07/fuel-cell-tractor-trailer-tech-fuel-l-iul22.pdf
72 Henning, Mark; Thomas, Andrew R.; and Smyth, Alison, "An Analysis of the Association between Changes in
Ambient Temperature, Fuel Economy, and Vehicle Range for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Buses" (2019).
Urban Publications. 0 1 2 3 1630. https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/urban facpub/1630
56
------- |