The
EPA Automotive
Trends Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-23-033 December 2023
-------
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions, positions, or validation of
compliance data reported to EPA by manufacturers. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues
using data that are currently available and that may be subject to change. Historic data have been
adjusted, when appropriate, to reflect the result of compliance investigations by EPA or any other
corrections necessary to maintain data integrity.
The purpose of the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments. This edition of the report supersedes all previous versions.
-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
A. What's New This Year 1
B. Manufacturers in this Report 2
C. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics in this Report 3
D. Other Sources of Data 5
2. Fleetwide Trends Overview 6
A. Overall Fuel Economy and C02 Trends 6
B. Production Trends 9
C. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions 10
3. Vehicle Attributes 15
A. Vehicle Class and Type 15
B. Vehicle Weight 22
C. Vehicle Power 26
D. Vehicle Footprint 31
E. Vehicle Type and Attribute Tradeoffs 34
4. Vehicle Technology 41
A. Technology Overview 41
B. Vehicle Propulsion 44
C. Vehicle Drivetrain 69
D. Technology Adoption 76
5. Manufacturer GHG Compliance 84
A. Footprint-Based C02 Standards 86
B. Model Year Performance 90
C. GHG Program Credits and Deficits 118
D. End of Year GHG Program Credit Balances 131
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data
A. Sources of Input Data
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
C. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics
D. Historical Changes in the Database and Methodology
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
F. Authors and Acknowledgments
-------
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions 6
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions Since Model Year 1975 7
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle C02 Emissions by Model Year 8
Figure 2.4. New Vehicle Production by Model Year 10
Figure 2.5. Changes in Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions by Manufacturer 11
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report 16
Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World C02 Emissions 17
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022 19
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less 20
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type 23
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year 24
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and C02 Emissions 25
Figure 3.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type 27
Figure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year 28
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and C02 Emissions 29
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type 30
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Years 2008-2022 32
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year 32
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and C02 Emissions 33
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, Horsepower, and Footprint 35
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow 41
Figure 4.2. Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2022 43
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology 45
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 47
Figure 4.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics 49
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages 51
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 53
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 53
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and Horsepower, Model Year
2011, 2014, and 2022 54
Figure 4.10. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Vehicle Type 56
Figure 4.11. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Number of Cylinders 56
Figure 4.12. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 58
Figure 4.13. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 58
Figure 4.14. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share Hybrid Type 59
Figure 4.15. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs 61
Figure 4.16 Impact of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs 62
Figure 4.17. Electric Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type 63
Figure 4.18. Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type 63
El !L
-------
Figure 4.19. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy for EVs and PHEVs 64
Figure 4.20. EV Energy Consumption by Weight and Vehicle Type 65
Figure 4.21. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 67
Figure 4.22. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 67
Figure 4.23. Percent Change for Specific Diesel Engine Metrics 68
Figure 4.24. Transmission Production Share 71
Figure 4.25. Transmission By Engine Technology, Model Year 2022 72
Figure 4.26. Average Number of Transmission Gears 73
Figure 4.27. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World Fuel Economy for
Comparable Vehicles 74
Figure 4.28. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share 75
Figure 4.29. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant Use 77
Figure 4.30. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key Technologies 79
Figure 5.1. The GHG Compliance Process 84
Figure 5.2. 2012-2022 Model Year C02 Footprint Target Curves 86
Figure 5.3. Changes in 2-Cycle Tailpipe C02 Emissions by Manufacturer 92
Figure 5.4. Model Year 2022 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs 94
Figure 5.5. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer 97
Figure 5.6. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type 99
Figure 5.7 Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022 99
Figure 5.8. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year 2022 101
Figure 5.9. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022 110
Figure 5.10. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, Model Year 2022 119
Figure 5.11. Early Credits by Manufacturer 128
Figure 5.12. Total Credits Transactions 131
Figure 5.13. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2022 134
Figure 5.14. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use 138
-------
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Model Year 2022 Manufacturer Definitions 3
Table 1.2. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics Used in this Report 4
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World C02, and Fuel Economy for Model Year 1975-2023 12
Table 2.2. Manufacturers and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year 13
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions for Model Year
2021-2023 14
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Model Year 36
Table 3.2. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Vehicle Type 37
Table 3.3. Model Year 2022 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer 38
Table 3.4. Model Year 2022 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Manufacturer and
Vehicle Type 39
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021-2023 (ft2) 40
Table 4.1. Production Share by Powertrain 80
Table 4.2. Production Share by Engine Technologies 81
Table 4.3. Production Share by Transmission Technologies 82
Table 4.4. Production Share by Drive Technology 83
Table 5.1. Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2022 89
Table 5.2. Production Multipliers by Model Year 93
Table 5.3. Model Year 2022 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and
Technology (g/mi) 106
Table 5.4. Model Year 2022 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative Methodology, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi) 109
Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, All (g/mi) 112
Table 5.6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi) 113
Table 5.7. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, Car (g/mi) 114
Table 5.8. Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi) 115
Table 5.9. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, Truck (g/mi) 116
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi) 117
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, All 121
Table 5.12. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, All 122
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, Car 123
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, Car 124
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, Truck 125
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, Truck 126
Table 5.17 Credit Expiration Schedule 129
Table 5.18. Example of a Deficit Offset with Credits from Previous Model Years 132
Table 5.19. Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022 (Mg) 135
Table 5.20. Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg) 136
Si Jv.
-------
1. Introduction
This annual report is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) commitment
to provide the public with information about new light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, fuel economy, technology data, and auto manufacturers' performance in
meeting the agency's GHG emissions standards.
Since 1975, EPA has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United
States either from testing performed by EPA at the National Vehicle Fuel and Emissions
Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from manufacturers using official EPA test
procedures. These data are collected to support several important national programs,
including EPA criteria pollutant and GHG standards, the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and vehicle Fuel Economy and Environment
labels. This expansive data set allows EPA to provide a uniquely comprehensive analysis of
the automotive industry since 1975.
A. What's New This Year
This report is updated each year to reflect the most recent data available to EPA for all
model years, relevant regulatory changes, methodology changes, and any other changes
relevant to the auto industry. These changes can affect multiple model years; therefore,
this version of the report supersedes all previous reports. Significant developments
relevant for this edition of the report include the following:
• In April 2023, EPA proposed revised light-duty GHG standards beginning in model
year 2027. In July 2023, NHTSA proposed revised Corporate Average Fuel Economy
standards, also beginning in model year 2027. Since these proposals have not been
finalized, they are not reflected in this report. Any applicable regulatory changes
finalized by EPA or NHTSA will be included in future versions of this report.
• Increasing production of electric vehicles continues to impact the automotive
industry. In model year 2022, Lucid and Rivian entered the market as all-EV
manufacturers. Several more manufacturers, including Canoo, Faraday, Lordstown,
and Vinfast, have labeled vehicles for production in model year 2023.
• This release of the report now tracks engines that use both gasoline direct injection
and port fuel injection (GDPI) for the first time. Previously these engines had been
1
-------
included with port fuel injection engines, but the increasing use of engines that can
use both fuel injection strategies has necessitated additional analysis.
• This release of the report also splits hybrid vehicles into "strong" hybrids and "mild"
hybrids for the first time. Increasing rates of vehicle hybridization have made this an
important distinction among hybrids.
• Readers of this report often have questions about the status of vehicles as cars or
trucks under EPA and NHTSA regulations. To help explain car and truck definitions,
this report added a flow chart in Appendix F.
B. Manufacturers in this Report
The underlying data for this report include every new light-duty vehicle offered for sale in
the United States. These data are presented by manufacturer throughout this report, using
model year 2022 manufacturer definitions determined by EPA and NHTSA for
implementation of the GHG emission standards and CAFE program. For simplicity, figures
and tables in the executive summary and in Sections 1-4 show only the top 14
manufacturers, by production volume. These manufacturers produced at least 150,000
vehicles each in the 2022 model year and accounted for more than 97% of all production.
The compliance discussion in Section 5 includes all manufacturers, regardless of
production volume. Table 1.1 lists all manufacturers that produced vehicles in the U.S. for
model year 2022, including their associated makes, and their categorization for this report.
Only vehicle brands produced in model year 2022 are shown in this table; however, this
report contains data on many other manufacturers and brands that have produced
vehicles for sale in the U.S. since 1975.
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, EPA applies
the new manufacturer definitions to all prior model years for the analysis of estimated real-
world C02 emission and fuel economy trends in Sections 1 through 4 of this report. This
maintains consistent manufacturer and make definitions over time, which enables better
identification of long-term trends. However, the compliance data that are discussed in
Section 5 of this report maintain the previous manufacturer definitions where necessary to
preserve the integrity of compliance data as accrued.
2
-------
Table 1.1. Model Year 2022 Manufacturer Definitions
Manufacturer
Makes in the U.S. Market
BMW
BMW, Mini, Rolls Royce
Ford
Ford, Lincoln, Roush, Shelby
General Motors (GM)
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC
Honda
Acura, Honda
Hyundai
Genesis, Hyundai
(A
Q)
Kia
Kia
v 3
Mazda
Mazda
00 U
fO M—
Mercedes
Maybach, Mercedes
—1 3
£
Nissan
Infiniti, Nissan
fU
Stellantis
Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, Ram
Subaru
Subaru
Tesla
Tesla
Toyota
Lexus, Toyota
Volkswagen (VW)
Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche,
Volkswagen
in
Jaguar Land Rover
Jaguar, Land Rover
-------
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of
two categories based on the purpose of the data and the subsequent required emissions
test procedures. The first category is compliance data, which is measured using laboratory
tests required by law for CAFE and adopted by EPA for GHG compliance. Compliance data
are measured using EPA city and highway test procedures (the "2-cycle" tests), and
fleetwide averages are calculated by weighting the city and highway test results by 55% and
45%, respectively. These procedures are required for compliance; however, they no longer
accurately reflect real-world driving. Compliance data may also encompass optional
performance credits and adjustments that manufacturers can use towards meeting their
emissions standards.
The second category is estimated real-world data, which is measured using additional
laboratory tests to capture a wider range of operating conditions (including hot and cold
weather, higher speeds, and faster accelerations) encountered by an average driver. This
expanded set of tests is referred to as "5-cycle" testing. City and highway results are
weighted 43% city and 57% highway, consistent with fleetwide driver activity data. The city
and highway values are the same values found on new vehicle fuel economy labels;
however, the label combined value is weighted 55% city and 45% highway. Unlike
compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data has evolved over time, along
with technology and driving habits.
Table 1.2. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics Used in this Report
C02 and Fuel Economy
Data Category
Purpose
Current
City/ Highway
Weighting
Current Test
Basis
Compliance
Basis for manufacturer
compliance with standards
55% / 45%
2-cycle
Estimated Real-World
Best estimate of real-world
performance
43% / 57%
5-cycle
This report will show estimated real-world data except for the discussion specific to the
GHG regulations in Section 5 and Executive Summary Figures ES-6 through ES-8. The
compliance CO2 data generally should not be compared to the real-world CO2 data
presented elsewhere in this report. For a more detailed discussion of the fuel economy and
CO2 data used in this report, including the differences between real-world and compliance
data, see Appendices C and D.
4
-------
D. Other Sources of Data
EPA continues to update detailed data from this report, including all years of the light-duty
GHG standards, to the EPA Automotive Trends website. We encourage readers to visit
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends and explore the data. EPA will continue to add
content and tools on the web to allow transparent access to public data.
Additional detailed vehicle data is available on www.fueleconomy.gov. which is a web
resource that helps consumers make informed fuel economy choices when purchasing a
vehicle and achieve the best fuel economy possible from the vehicle they own. EPA
supplies the underlying data, much of which can be downloaded at
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml.
In addition, EPA's Green Vehicle Guide is an accessible, transportation-focused website that
provides information, data, and tools on greener options for moving goods and people.
This report does not provide data about NHTSA's CAFE program. For more information
about CAFE and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE fuel economy standards, see the
CAFE Public Information Center, which can be accessed at
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe pic/home.
5
-------
2. Fleetwide Trends Overview
The automotive industry continues to make progress towards lower tailpipe CO2 emissions
and higher fuel economy in recent years. This section provides an update on the estimated
real-world tailpipe CO2 emissions and fuel economy for the overall fleet, and for
manufacturers based on final model year 2022 data. The unique, historical data on which
this report is based also provide an important backdrop for evaluating the more recent
performance of the industry. Using that data, this section will also explore basic fleetwide
trends in the automotive industry since EPA began collecting data in model year 1975.
A. Overall Fuel Economy and CO2 Trends
In model year 2022, the average Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World
estimated real-world CO2 emission
rate for all new vehicles fell by 10
g/mi to 337 g/mi, the lowest ever
measured. Real-world fuel economy
increased by 0.6 mpg, to a record
high 26.0 mpg.1 This is the largest
single year improvement in CO2
emission rates and fuel economy in
nine years.
Since model year 2004, CO2
emissions have decreased 27%, or
123 g/mi, and fuel economy has
increased 35%, or 6.7 mpg. Over
that time, CO2 emissions have
improved in fifteen of eighteen
years. The trends in C02emissions
and fuel economy since 1975 are
shown in Figure 2.1.
Preliminary data suggest that CO2
emissions and fuel economy in
1 EPA generally uses unrounded values to calculate values in the text, figures, and tables in this report. This
approach results in the most accurate data but may lead to small apparent discrepancies due to rounding.
Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions
o
a_
E
o
I—
o
o
LU
75
=3
m
-------
model year 2023 will improve from the levels achieved in 2022. The preliminary model year
2023 data are based on production estimates provided to EPA by manufacturers months
before the vehicles go on sale. The data are a useful indicator, however there is always
uncertainty associated with such projections, and we caution the reader against focusing
only on these data. Projected data are shown in Figure 2.1 as a dot because the values are
based on manufacturer projections rather than final data.
While the most recent annual changes often receive the most public attention, the greatest
value of the Trends database is to document long-term trends. The magnitude of changes
in annual CO2 emissions and fuel economy tend to be small relative to longer, multi-year
trends. Figure 2.2 shows fleetwide estimated real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy
for model years 1975-2022. Over this timeframe there have been three basic phases: 1) a
rapid improvement of CO2 emissions and fuel economy between 1975 and 1987, 2) a
period of slowly increasing CO2 emissions and decreasing fuel economy through 2004, and
3) decreasing CO2 emissions and increasing fuel economy through the current model year.
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Since Model Year 1975
Model Year
7
-------
Vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy are inversely related for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, but not for electric vehicles. Since gasoline and diesel vehicles have made up the
vast majority of vehicle production since 1975, Figure 2,2 shows an inverted, but highly
correlated relationship between CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Electric vehicles, which
account for a small but growing portion of vehicle production, have zero tailpipe CO2
emissions, regardless of fuel economy (as measured in miles per gallon equivalent, or
mpge). If electric vehicles continue to capture a larger market share, the overall
relationship between fuel economy and tailpipe C02 emissions will change.
Another way to look at CO2 emissions over time is to examine how the distribution of new
vehicle emission rates have changed. Figure 2.3 shows the distribution of real-world
tailpipe C02 emissions for all vehicles produced within each model year. Half of the vehicles
produced each year are clustered within a small band around the median CO2 emission
rate, as shown in blue. The remaining vehicles show a much wider spread, especially in
recent years as the production of electric vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions has
increased. The lowest C02-emitting vehicles have all been hybrids or electric vehicles since
the first hybrid was introduced in model year 2000, while the highest CCb-emitting vehicles
are generally performance vehicles or large trucks.
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle C02 Emissions by Model Year2
Worst Vehicle
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
2 Electric vehicles prior to 2011 are not included in this figure due to limited data. However, those vehicles were
available in small numbers only.
8
-------
It is important to note that the methodology used in this report for calculating estimated
real-world fuel economy and CO2 emission values has changed over time to reflect
changing vehicle technology and operation. For example, the estimated real-world fuel
economy for a 1980s vehicle is somewhat higher than it would be if the same vehicle were
being produced today. These changes are small for most vehicles, but larger for very high
fuel economy vehicles. See Appendices C and D for a detailed explanation of fuel economy
metrics and their changes over time.
B. Production T rends
This report is based on the total number of vehicles produced by manufacturers for sale in
the United States by model year. Model year is the manufacturer's annual production
period, which includes January 1 of the same calendar year. A typical model year for a
vehicle begins in fall of the preceding calendar year and runs until late in the next calendar
year. However, model years vary among manufacturers and can occur between January 2
of the preceding calendaryear and the end of the calendaryear. Model year production
data is the most direct way to analyze emissions, fuel economy, technology, and
compliance trends because vehicle designs within a model year do not typically change.
The use of model year production may lead to some short-term discrepancies with other
sources, which typically report calendar year sales; however, sales based on the calendar
year generally encompass more than one model year, which complicates any analysis.
Since the inception of this report, production of vehicles for sale in the United States has
grown roughly 0.5% year over year, but there have been significant swings up or down in
any given model year due to the impact of multiple market forces. For example, in model
year 2009, economic conditions resulted in the lowest model year production since the
start of this report, at 9.3 million vehicles. Production rebounded over the next several
model years, reaching an all-time high of more than 17 million vehicles in model year 2017.
Model year 2020 production fell 15% from the previous year, as the COVID-19 pandemic
had wide-ranging impacts on the economy and vehicle production. Production in model
years 2021 and 2022 have not rebounded to pre COVID-19 levels, due at least in part to
supply chain disruptions affecting the availability of semiconductors and other
components. Figure 2.4 shows the production trends by model year for model years 1975
to 2022.
9
-------
Figure 2.4. New Vehicle Production by Model Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
C. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2
Emissions
Along with the overall industry, most manufacturers have improved new vehicle CO2
emission rates and fuel economy in recent years. Manufacturer trends over the last five
years are shown in Figure 2.5. This span covers the approximate length of a vehicle
redesign cycle, and it is likely that most vehicles have undergone design changes in this
period, resulting in a more accurate depiction of recent manufacturer trends than focusing
on a single year. Changes over this time period can be attributed to both vehicle design
and changing vehicle production trends. The change in production trends, and the impact
on the trends shown in Figure 2.5 are discussed in more detail in the next section.
For model year 2022 alone, Tesla's all-electric fleet had by far the lowest tailpipe CO2
emissions of all large manufacturers. Tesla was followed by Hyundai, Kia, Honda, Subaru,
and Toyota. Stellantis had the highest new vehicle average CO2 emissions and lowest fuel
economy of the large manufacturers in model year 2022, followed by GM and Ford. Tesla
also had the highest overall fuel economy, followed by Hyundai, Honda, Kia, Subaru, and
Toyota.
10
-------
Figure 2.5. Changes in Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer
Fuel Economy (MPG), 2017 - 2022
C02 Emissions (g/mi), 2017 - 2022
Tesla
Hyundai
Honda
Kia -
Subaru
Toyota
Nissan
Mazda
VWH
BMW
Mercedes
Ford
GM
Stellantis -
All Manufacturers
no 0 ,
* 11 n ?
>0
~ i i y. 0
60
80
100
120
1
50
100
150
25.3
20
25
23.0—*23.8
22.9 >>23.1
22.04—22.8
21.1 >21.3
24.9
1
24
; >6.9-^27.4
27.0*
26.
.3*4
28.6-^29.1
28.7-4—29.4
27.1 ~28.6
27.9-4-28.5
*27.8
-4-26.4
5.8
26.0
28
-29.0
T—
32
302-4-311
302-X309
'
OUO -318
9
i1
3224-3;
306 >-32
333<
3'
\o
3
336
12*344
371-4—385
380-4-388
388
~~406
415*420
337
357
300
350
400
450
11
-------
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World C02, and Fuel Economy for Model Year 1975-2023
Model Year
Production
(000)
Real-World
C02 (g/mi)
Real-World
FE(MPG)
Model Year
Production
(000)
Real-World
C02 (g/mi)
Real-World
FE(MPG)
1975
10,224
681
13.1
2000
16,571
450
19.8
1976
12,334
625
14.2
2001
15,605
453
19.6
1977
14,123
590
15.1
2002
16,115
457
19.5
1978
14,448
562
15.8
2003
15,773
454
19.6
1979
13,882
560
15.9
2004
15,709
461
19.3
1980
11,306
466
19.2
2005
15,892
447
19.9
1981
10,554
436
20.5
2006
15,104
442
20.1
1982
9,732
425
21.1
2007
15,276
431
20.6
1983
10,302
426
21.0
2008
13,898
424
21.0
1984
14,020
424
21.0
2009
9,316
397
22.4
1985
14,460
417
21.3
2010
11,116
394
22.6
1986
15,365
407
21.8
2011
12,018
399
22.3
1987
14,865
405
22.0
2012
13,449
377
23.6
1988
15,295
407
21.9
2013
15,198
368
24.2
1989
14,453
415
21.4
2014
15,512
369
24.1
1990
12,615
420
21.2
2015
16,739
360
24.6
1991
12,573
418
21.3
2016
16,278
359
24.7
1992
12,172
427
20.8
2017
17,016
357
24.9
1993
13,211
426
20.9
2018
16,260
353
25.1
1994
14,125
436
20.4
2019
16,139
356
24.9
1995
15,145
434
20.5
2020
13,721
349
25.4
1996
13,144
435
20.4
2021
13,812
347
25.4
1997
14,458
441
20.2
2022
12,857
337
26.0
1998
14,456
442
20.1
2023 (prelim)
320
26.9
1999
15,215
451
19.7
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
12
-------
Table 2.2. Manufacturers and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year
Overall Vehicle with Gasoline (Non-Hybrid) Vehicle
Manufacturer Manufacturer Highest Fuel Economy4 with Highest Fuel Economy
with Highest
with Lowest
Real-
Real-
Fuel Economy3
Fuel Economy
World FE
Engine
World FE
Model Year
(mpg)
(mpg)
Vehicle
(mpg)
Type
Gasoline Vehicle
(mpg)
1975
Honda
Ford
Honda Civic
28.3
Gas
Honda Civic
28.3
1980
VW
Ford
VW Rabbit
40.3
Diesel
Nissan 210
36.1
1985
Honda
Mercedes
GM Sprint
49.6
Gas
GM Sprint
49.6
1990
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
53.4
Gas
GM Metro
53.4
1995
Honda
Stellantis
Honda Civic
47.3
Gas
Honda Civic
47.3
2000
Hyundai
Stellantis
Honda Insight
57.4
Hybrid
GM Metro
39.4
2005
Honda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.3
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.1
2010
Hyundai
Mercedes
Honda FCX
60.2
FCV
Smart Fortwo
36.8
2011
Hyundai
Mercedes
BMW Active E
100.6
EV
Smart Fortwo
35.7
2012
Hyundai
Stellantis
Nissan i-MiEV
109.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2013
Hyundai
Stellantis
Toyota IQ
117.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2014
Mazda
Stellantis
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2015
Mazda
Stellantis
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2016
Mazda
Stellantis
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mazda 2
37.1
2017
Honda
Stellantis
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.5
2018
Tesla
Stellantis
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.5
2019
Tesla
Stellantis
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.6
2020
Tesla
Stellantis
Tesla Model 3
138.6
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.6
2021
Tesla
Stellantis
Tesla Model 3
139.1
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.6
2022
Tesla
Stellantis
Lucid Air G
131.4
EV
M
tsubishi Mirage
41.6
2023 (prelim)
Tesla
Stellantis
Lucid Air Pure
140.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
40.0
3 Manufacturers below the 150,000 threshold for "large" manufacturers are excluded in years they did not meet the threshold.
4 Vehicles are shown based on estimated real-world fuel economy as calculated for this report. These values will differ from values found on the fuel
economy labels at the time of sale. For more information on fuel economy metrics see Appendix C.
13
-------
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for Model Year 2021-2023
MY 2021 Final
MY 2022 Final
MY2023 Preliminary
FE Change
C02 Change
Real-World
Real-World
Real-World
from
Real-World
from
Real-
Real-
FE
C02
FE
MY 2020
C02
MY 2020
World FE
World CO2
Manufacturer
(mpg)
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(mpg)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(g/mi)
BMW
25.8
339
25.3
-0.5
344
5
27.4
310
Ford
22.9
385
23.1
0.2
380
-5
23.1
376
GM
21.6
414
22.0
0.4
406
-9
22.2
399
Honda
28.5
312
28.7
0.2
309
-2
28.7
310
Hyundai
28.5
310
29.1
0.6
302
-8
29.1
300
Kia
28.7
310
28.6
-0.1
306
-4
29.7
293
Mazda
27.4
324
27.0
-0.3
328
4
27.5
323
Mercedes
23.6
376
23.8
0.1
371
-5
28.0
298
Nissan
28.6
311
27.4
-1.1
322
12
27.8
314
Stellantis
21.3
417
21.3
0.1
415
-2
22.0
397
Subaru
28.8
309
27.9
-0.8
318
9
28.0
316
Tesla
123.9
0
119.3
-4.7
0
0
120.7
0
Toyota
27.1
327
27.8
0.7
319
-7
28.2
314
VW
24.7
352
26.1
1.3
333
-20
28.9
292
All Manufacturers
25.4
347
26.0
0.6
337
-10
26.9
320
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
14
-------
3. Vehicle Attributes
Vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy are strongly influenced by vehicle design
parameters, including weight, power, acceleration, and size. In general, vehicles that are
larger, heavier, and more powerful typically have lower fuel economy and higher C02
emissions than other comparable vehicles. This section focuses on several key vehicle
design attributes that impact CO2 emissions and fuel economy and evaluates the impact of
a changing automotive marketplace on overall fuel economy.
A. Vehicle Class and Type
Manufacturers offer a wide variety of light-duty vehicles in the United States. Under the
CAFE and GHG regulations, new vehicles are separated into two distinct regulatory classes,
passenger cars and light trucks, and each vehicle class has separate GHG and fuel economy
standards5. Vehicles can qualify as light trucks based on the vehicle's functionality as
defined in the regulations (for example if the vehicle can transport cargo on an open bed or
the cargo carrying volume is more than the passenger carrying volume). Vehicles that have
a gross vehicle weight rating6 (GVWR) of more than 6,000 pounds or have four-wheel drive
and meet various off-road requirements, such as ground clearance, can also qualify as light
trucks. Vehicles that do not meet these requirements are considered cars. For more
information on car and truck regulatory definitions, see Appendix F.
Pickup trucks, vans, and minivans are classified as light trucks under NHTSA's regulatory
definitions, while sedans, coupes, and wagons are generally classified as cars. Sport utility
vehicles (SUVs) can fall into either category depending on the relevant attributes of the
specific vehicle. Based on the CAFE and GHG regulatory definitions, most two-wheel drive
SUVs under 6,000 pounds GVW are classified as cars, while most SUVs that have four-wheel
drive or are above 6,000 pounds GVW are considered trucks. SUV models that are less than
6,000 pounds GVW can have both car and truck variants, with two-wheel drive versions
classified as cars and four-wheel drive versions classified as trucks. As the fleet has
changed over time, the line drawn between car and truck classes has also evolved. This
5 Passenger vehicles (cars) and light trucks (trucks) are defined by regulation in EPA's 40 CFR 86.1818-12 which
references the Department of Transportation's 49 CFR 523.4-523.5.
6 Gross vehicle weight rating is the combined weight of the vehicle, passengers, and cargo of a fully loaded
vehicle.
15
-------
report uses the current regulatory car and truck definitions, and these changes have been
propagated back throughout the historical data.
This report further separates the car and truck regulatory classes into five vehicle type
categories based on their body style classifications under the fuel economy labeling
program. The regulatory car class is divided into two vehicle types: sedan/wagon and car
SUV. The sedan/wagon vehicle type includes mini-compact, subcompact, compact, midsize,
large, and two-seater cars, hatchbacks, and station wagons. Vehicles that are SUVs under
the labeling program and cars under the CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as car
SUVs in this report. The truck class is divided into three vehicle types: pickup, minivan/van,
and truck SUV. Vehicles that are SUVs under the labeling program and trucks under the
CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as truck SUVs. Figure 3.1 shows the two regulatory
classes and five vehicle types used in this report. The distinction between these five vehicle
types is important because different vehicle types have different design objectives, and
different challenges and opportunities for improving fuel economy and reducing CO2
emissions.
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report
Regulatory Class Vehicle Type
Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type
The production volume of the different vehicle types has changed significantly over time.
Figure 3.2 shows the production shares of each of the five vehicle types since model year
1975. The overall new vehicle market continues to move away from the sedan/wagon
vehicle type towards a combination of truck SUVs, car SUVs, and pickups. Sedan/wagons
16
-------
were the dominant vehicle type in 1975, when more than 80% of vehicles produced were
sedan/wagons. Since then, their production share has generally been falling, and with a
market share of only 27% in model year 2022, sedans/wagons now hold about a third of
the market share they held in model year 1975.
The overall new vehicle market has been trending away from the sedan/wagon vehicle type
towards a combination of truck SUVs and car SUVs for many years. Vehicles that could be
classified as a car SUV or truck SUV were a very small part of the production share in 1975
but now account for more than half of all new vehicles produced. In model year 2022, the
market share for both car SUVs and truck SUVs fell by about one percentage point
compared to model year 2021. Given the longer-term trends and projected data for model
year 2023, this does not appear to be a reversal of market trends. Truck SUVs remained
near a record high production share in model year 2022, at 44%, while Car SUVs accounted
for 10% of production.
The production share of pickups has fluctuated over time, peaking at 19% in 1994 and then
falling to 10% in 2012. Pickups have generally increased in recent years and accounted for
16% of the market in model year 2022. Minivan/vans captured less than 5% of the market
in 1975, increased to 11 % in model year 1995 but have fallen since to 3% of vehicle
production in model year 2022. The projected 2023 data shows a vehicle type distribution
that is similar to model year 2022.
Figure 3.2. Production Share arid Estimated Real-World CO2 Emissions
100% -
75% -
50% -
25% -
0%-
Sedan/Wagon
600-
^400
F
^ 200
3 800
CO 600
C
O 400
U5 200
'j= 800
UJ 600'
"400
O
o
2 DO
eoo
600'
400-
_L 200-
CD 800-
CD
DC 6oo
400-
1975
1985
1995
2005
2015
2025
260
I
V
364
I
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
Model Year
17
-------
The truck regulatory class (including pickups, minivan/vans, and truck SUVs) has increased
production share every year for the last decade, increasing from 36% to 63% of all new
vehicle production. While the increase between model year 2021 and 2022 was the
smallest increase over that span (at 0.2 percentage points), trucks are projected to increase
overall production share again in 2023, so this is unlikely to be a change in the longer-term
trend towards trucks. In Figure 3.2, the dashed line between the car SUVs and truck SUVs
shows the split in car and truck regulatory class.
Figure 3.2 also shows estimated CO2 emissions for each vehicle type since 1975. Four of the
five vehicle types are at record low CO2 emissions and record high fuel economy in model
year 2022. Car SUVs decreased CO2 emissions by 27 g/mi to become the vehicle type with
the lowest C02 emissions, falling below sedan/wagons for the first time. Pickups decreased
CO2 emissions by 18 g/mi, sedan/wagons decreased by 11 g/mi, and truck SUVs decreased
by 4 g/mi. Minivan/vans, which accounted for less than 3% of new vehicle production in
model year 2022, were the only vehicle type that had higher CO2 emissions in 2022
compared to 2021, increasing by 17 g/mi. In the preliminary model year 2023 data (shown
as a dot on Figure 3.2), all five vehicle types are expected to improve CO2 emissions from
model year 2022.
In terms of fuel economy, car SUVs increased fuel economy by 2.4 g/mi to become the
vehicle type with the highest fuel economy, surpassing sedan/wagons for the first time.
Sedans/wagons increased fuel economy by 1.0 mpg, pickups increased by 0.7 mpg, and
truck SUVs increased by 0.2 mpg, while minivans/vans had lower fuel economy in 2022,
decreasing by 1.3 mpg from 2021. All vehicle types, except for pickups, now achieve fuel
economy more than double what they achieved in 1975. All five vehicle types are expected
to improve fuel economy from model year 2022 based on preliminary model year 2023
data.
Overall fuel economy and C02 emissions trends depend on the trends within the five
vehicle types, but also on the market share of each of the vehicle types. The trend away
from sedan/wagons, and towards vehicle types with lower fuel economy and higher CO2
emissions, has offset some of the fleetwide benefits that otherwise would have been
achieved from the improvements within each vehicle type.
18
-------
Vehicle Type by Manufacturer
The model year 2022 production breakdown by vehicle type for each manufacturer is
shown in Figure 3.3. There are clear variations in production distribution by manufacturer.
Nissan had the highest production of sedan/wagons at 55%. For other vehicle types, Tesla
had the highest percentage of car SUVs at 46%; Mazda had the highest percentage of truck
SUVs at 85%; Ford had the highest percentage of pickups at 37%, and Stellantis had the
highest percentage of minivan/vans at 10%.
The changes in vehicle type distributions by manufacturer between model year 2021 and
2022 were mixed. Mazda increased truck SUV production by 24 percentage points, at the
expense of car SUVs, down 19 percentage points, and some sedan/wagons. Hyundai
increased truck SUV production by 19 percentage points, while reducing the percentage of
sedan/wagons by 13 percentage points and car SUV by 6 percentage points. All other
vehicle type production shifts within each manufacturer were less than 10 percentage
points.
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022
Lower average C07 Emissions
100%
o 75%-
co
JZ
ay
o 50%
o
3
"O
o
25%-
0%
I
I
I
ll
i 1 r
^ J? <£> i:
I
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
| Car SUV
Truck SUV
Mini van/Van
I Pickup
19
-------
A Closer Look at SUVs
SUV Classification
Since 1975, the production share of SUVs in the United States has increased in all but 10
years, and now accounts for more than 54% of all vehicles produced (see Figure 3.2). This
includes both the car and truck SUV vehicle types.
Based on the regulatory definitions of cars and trucks, SUVs that are less than 6,000 pounds
GVWR can be classified as either cars or trucks, depending on design requirements such as
minimum angles and clearances, and whether the vehicle has 2-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive.
This definition can lead to similar vehicles having different car or truck classifications, and
different requirements under the GHG and CAFE regulations. One trend of particular interest
is the classification of SUVs as either car SUVs or truck SUVs.
This report does not track GVWR, but instead tracks weight using inertia weight classes,
where inertia weight is the weight of the empty vehicle, plus 300 pounds (see weight
discussion on the next page). Figure 3.4 shows the breakdown of SUVs into the car and truck
categories over time for vehicles with an inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or less. Heavier
vehicles were excluded, as these vehicles generally exceed 6,000 pounds GVWR and are
classified as trucks. The relative percentage of SUVs with an inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or
less that meet the current regulatory truck definition increased to 71 % in model year 2022,
which is the highest percentage of production since at least model year 2000. Projected
model year 2023 data maintains the same ratio of truck SUVs.
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less
100%
0 75%
CD
W
.2 50%
"5
Z3
¦o
o
i_
25%
0%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
20
-------
For some manufacturers, changes in the mix of vehicle types they produce has also led to a
significant impact on their overall new vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Over the
last five years, as shown in Figure 2.5, Toyota achieved the largest reduction in CO2
emissions, at 32 g/mi. Toyota decreased emissions across all vehicle types and decreased
overall emissions even as their truck SUV share increased from 27% to 38%. Kia achieved
the second largest reduction in overall CO2 tailpipe emissions, at 21 g/mi, and Mercedes
had the third largest reduction in overall CO2 tailpipe emissions at 14 g/mi. Hyundai, Ford,
Nissan, Stellantis, and VW also achieved overall emission reductions.
Over the same five-year period, Mazda had the largest increase at 22 g/mi, due to a shift in
production from 29% to 85% truck SUVs, along with increased CO2 emission rates within
their sedan/wagon vehicle types. GM had the second largest increase at 17 g/mi, and
Honda had the third largest increase at 7 g/mi. Shifts in production towards larger vehicles
combined with increased CO2 emission rates for pickups more than offset emission
improvements in all other vehicle types for GM and Honda.
21
-------
B. Vehicle Weight
Vehicle weight is a fundamental vehicle attribute, both because it can be related to utility
functions such as vehicle size and features, and because vehicles with a higher weight,
other things being equal, will require more energy to move. For vehicles with an internal
combustion engine, this higher energy requirement generally results in more CO2
emissions and decreased fuel economy. For electric vehicles (EVs), the higher energy
required to move a vehicle with more weight will likely decrease fuel economy, measured
in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge), but will not increase CO2 emissions, since
EVs do not have tailpipe emissions regardless of the weight of the vehicle. Due to the
weight of battery packs, electric vehicles are likely to weigh more than comparable internal
combustion engine vehicles and can even result in the vehicle falling under different
regulatory requirements.
All vehicle weight data in this report are based on inertia weight classes. Each inertia weight
class represents a range of loaded vehicle weights, or vehicle curb weights7 plus 300
pounds. Vehicle inertia weight classes are in 250-pound increments for classes below 3,000
pounds, while inertia weight classes over 3,000 pounds are divided into 500-pound
increments.
Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type
Figure 3.5 shows the average new vehicle weight for all vehicle types since model year
1975. From model year 1975 to 1981, average vehicle weight dropped 21 %, from 4,060
pounds per vehicle to about 3,200 pounds; this was likely driven by both increasing fuel
economy standards (which, at the time, were universal standards, and not based on any
type of vehicle attribute) and higher gasoline prices.
From model year 1981 to model year 2004, the trend reversed, and average new vehicle
weight began to slowly but steadily climb. By model year 2004, average new vehicle weight
had increased 28% from model year 1981 and reached 4,111 pounds per vehicle, in part
because of the increasing truck share. Average vehicle weight in model year 2022 was
about 5% above 2004 and is currently at the highest point on record, at 4,303 pounds.
Preliminary model year 2023 data suggest that weight will continue to increase.
In model year 1975, the difference between the heaviest and lightest vehicle types was
about 215 pounds, or about 5% of the average new vehicle. By model year 2022, the
7 Vehicle curb weight is the weight of an empty, unloaded vehicle.
22
-------
difference between the heaviest and lightest vehicle types was about 1,575 pounds, or
about 37% of the average new vehicle weight. Between model year 1975 and 2022, the
weight of an average new sedan/wagon fell 11 % while the weight of an average new pickup
increased 29%. In 1975, the average new sedan/wagon outweighed the average new pickup
by about 45 pounds, but the different weight trends over time for each of these vehicle
types led to a very different result in model year 2022, with the average new pickup
outweighing the average new sedan/wagon by about 1,575 pounds. Pickups are below
their model year 2014 high of 5,484 pounds per vehicle, due to vehicle redesigns of popular
truck models and the use of weight saving designs, such as aluminum bodies.
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
^ 3000
'ST
% 2500
Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup
O) 5500
£
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
Figure 3.6 shows the annual production share of different inertia weight classes for new
vehicles since model year 1975. In model year 1975, there were significant sales in all
weight classes from <2,750 pounds to 5,500 pounds. In the early 1980s, the largest vehicles
disappeared from the market, and light cars <2,750 pounds inertia weight briefly captured
more than 25% of the market. Since then, cars in the <2,750-pound inertia weight class
have all but disappeared, and the market has moved towards heavier vehicles.
ALL
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
6%
t
Since MY 1975
y
-11%
Since MY 1975
\
1
r
4
-3%
Since MY 1975
7% t
9% t
29% t
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
23
-------
Interestingly, the heaviest vehicles in model year 1975 were mostly large cars, whereas the
heaviest vehicles today are largely pickups and truck SUVs, along with a few minivan/vans
and a small number of luxury sedan/wagons.
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year
100%
Weight
| <2750
| 2750
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
| 5500
| 6000
| >6000
0%-
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Vehicle Weight and CO2 Emissions
Heavier vehicles require more energy to move than lower-weight vehicles and, if all other
factors are the same, will have lower fuel economy and higher CO2 emissions. The wide
array of technology available in modern vehicles complicates this comparison, but it is still
useful to evaluate the relationship between vehicle weight and C02 emissions, and how
these variables have changed over time.
Figure 3.7 shows estimated real-world C02 emissions as a function of vehicle inertia weight
for model year 1978s and model year 2020. On average, C02 emissions increase linearly
with vehicle weight for both model years, although the rate of change as vehicles get
heavier is different. At lower weights, vehicles from model year 2022 produced about two
8 Model year 1978 was the first year for which complete horsepower data are available, therefore it will be used
for several historical comparisons for consistency.
24
-------
thirds of the CO2 emissions of 1978 vehicles. The difference between model year 2022 and
1978 increases for heavier vehicles, as the heaviest model year 2022 vehicles produce
about half of the C02 emissions of 1978 vehicles.
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and CO2 Emissions
1200-1
900-
E
S
-------
C. Vehicle Power
Vehicle power, measured in horsepower (hp), has changed dramatically since model year
1975. In the early years of this report, horsepower fell, from an average of 137 hp in model
year 1975 to 102 hp in model year 1981. Since model year 1981, however, horsepower has
increased almost every year. The average new vehicle in model year 2022 produced 88%
more power than a new vehicle in model year 1975, and 153% more power than an
average new vehicle in model year 1981. The average new vehicle horsepower is at a
record high, increasing from 253 hp in model year 2021 to 259 hp in model year 2022. The
preliminary value for model year 2023 is 272 hp, which would be another record-high for
horsepower.
Many EVs have high hp ratings, however determining vehicle horsepower for EVs and
PHEVs can be more complicated than for vehicles with internal combustion engines. The
power available at the wheels of an EV may be limited by numerous electrical components
other than the motor. In addition, some EVs have multiple motors and the total available
power may be less than the sum of the individual motor ratings. PHEVs, which have an
internal combustion engine, at least one motor, and complicated control strategies, can be
even more complicated to accurately assign one static power value. Therefore, horsepower
values for the increasing number of EVs and PHEVs are more difficult to determine and
may have higher uncertainty.
Vehicle Power by Vehicle Type
As with weight, the changes in horsepower are also different among vehicle types, as
shown in Figure 3.8. Horsepower for sedan/wagons increased 64% between model year
1975 and 2022, 74% for truck SUVs, 118% for car SUVs, 68% for minivan/vans, and 137% for
pickups. Horsepower has generally been increasing for all vehicle types since about 1985,
but there is more variation between model types in the last decade. The projected model
year 2023 data shows a large increase of about 13 hp across all new vehicles. This is due, in
part, to the projected increase of electric vehicle penetration, many of which have high
horsepower ratings. The projected data shown horsepower increases for all vehicle types.
26
-------
Figure 3.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan/Wagon Car SUV
Model Year
The distribution of horsepower over time has shifted towards vehicles with higher
horsepower, as shown in Figure 3.9. While few new vehicles in the early 1980s had greater
than 200 hp, the average vehicle in model year 2022 had 259 hp. In addition, vehicles with
more than 250 hp make up more than half of new vehicle production, and the maximum
horsepower for an individual vehicle is now 1,600 hp. Horsepower is projected to increase
again in model year 2023, with 7% of vehicles projected to reach 400 hp or higher.
27
-------
:igure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year
100% -
75% -
a>
s_
cu
JZ
CO
S 50%
•4—1'
O
13
¦D
O
25% -
0% -| —
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Model Year
Horsepower
>450
400-450
¦
350-400
300-350
¦
250-300
200-250
¦
150-200
100-150
50-100
¦
0-50
Vehicle Power and CO2 Emissions
The relationship between vehicle power, CO2 emissions, and fuel economy has become
more complex as new technology and vehicles have emerged in the marketplace, In the
past, higher power generally increased CO2 emissions and decreased fuel economy,
especially when new vehicle production relied exclusively on gasoline and diesel internal
combustion engines. As shown in Figure 3.10, model year 1978 vehicles with increased
horsepower generally had increased CO2 emissions. In model year 2022, CO2 emissions
increased with increased vehicle horsepower at a much lower rate than in model year
1978, such that model year 2022 vehicles nearly all had lower CO2 emissions than their
model year 1978 counterparts with the same amount of power. Technology improvements,
including turbocharged engines and hybrid packages, have reduced the incremental CO2
emissions associated with increased power. Electric vehicles are present along the 0 g/mi
line in Figure 3.10 because they produce no tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of
horsepower, further complicating this analysis for modern vehicles.
-------
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and CO2 Emissions
E
3
N
O
O
•D
CD
d)
tr
1200
900
600
300
Horsepower
Vehicle Acceleration
Vehicle acceleration is closely related to vehicle horsepower. As new vehicles have
increased horsepower, the corresponding ability of vehicles to accelerate has also
increased. The most common vehicle acceleration metric, and one of the most recognized
vehicle metrics overall, is the time it takes a vehicle to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per
hour, also called the Q-to-60 time. Data on 0-to-60 times are not directly submitted to EPA
but are calculated for most vehicles using vehicle attributes and calculation methods
developed by MacKenzie and Heywood (2012).9
The relationship between power and acceleration is different for EVs than for vehicles with
internal combustion engines. Electric motors generally have maximum torque available
from a standstill, which is not true for internal combustion engines. The result is that EVs
can have very fast 0-60 acceleration times, and the calculation methods used for vehicles
9 MacKenzie, D. Heywood, J. 2012, Acceleration performance trends and the evolving relationship among
power, weight, and acceleration in U.S. light-duty vehicles: A linear regression analysis. Transportation Research
Board, Paper NO 12-1475, TRB 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 2012.
29
-------
with internal combustion engines are not vaiid for EVs. PHEVs and hybrids may also use
their motors to improve acceleration. Acceleration times for EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids must
be obtained from external sources, and as with horsepower values, there may be more
uncertainty with these values.
Since the early 1980s, there has been a clear downward trend in O-to-60 times. Figure 3.11
shows the average new vehicle 0-to-60 time since model year 1978. The average new
vehicle in model year 2022 had a 0-to-60 time of 7.6 seconds, which is the fastest average
0-to-60 time for any model year and less than half of the average 0-to-60 time of the early
1980s. The calculated 0-to-60 time for model year 2023 is projected to decrease again, to
7.3 seconds. The long-term downward trend in 0-to-60 times is consistent across all vehicle
types. The continuing decrease in pickup truck 0-to-60 times is likely due to their increasing
power, as shown in Figure 3.8. While much of that power is intended to increase towing
and hauling capacity, it also decreases Q-to-60 times. Increasing EV production will likely
continue, and perhaps accelerate, the trend towards lower 0-to-60 acceleration times.
-45% ~
Since MY 1978
-44% ~
Since MY 1978
-46% ~
Since MY 1978
Truck SUV
Minivan / Van
-42% ~
Since MY 1978
Since MY 1978
Since MY 1978
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan / Wagon
Car SUV
18
30
-------
D. Vehicle Footprint
Vehicle footprint is an important attribute since it is the basis for the current C02 emissions
and fuel economy standards. Footprint is the product of wheelbase times average track
width (the area defined by where the centers of the tires touch the ground). This report
provides footprint data beginning with model year 2008, although footprint data from
model years 2008-2010 were aggregated from various sources and EPA has less
confidence in the precision of these data than that of formal compliance data. Beginning in
model year 2011, the first year when both car and truck CAFE standards were based on
footprint, automakers began to submit reports to EPA with footprint data at the end of the
model year, and these official footprint data are reflected in the final data through model
year 2022. EPA projects footprint data for the preliminary model year 2023 fleet based on
footprint values from the previous model year and, for new vehicle designs, publicly
available data.
Vehicle Footprint by Vehicle Type
Figure 3.12 shows overall new vehicle and vehicle type footprint data since model year
2008. Between model year 2008 and 2022, the overall average footprint increased 6%, from
48.9 to 51.6 square feet. All five vehicle types have increased average footprint since model
year 2008. Car SUVs and truck SUVs have each increased in 1.4 square feet, pickups have
increased 1.6 square feet, and sedan/wagons and minivans/vans have increased 1.8 square
feet. The overall increase in footprint is impacted by both the trends within each vehicle
type and the changing mix of vehicles over time, as the market has shifted towards larger
vehicles.
The distribution of footprints across all new vehicles, as shown in Figure 3.13, also shows a
slow reduction in the number of smaller vehicles with a footprint of less than 45 square
feet, along with growth in larger vehicle categories. This is consistent with the changes in
market trends towards larger vehicles, as seen in Figure 3.2 and elsewhere in this report.
Projected data for model year 2023 suggest that overall average footprint will increase to
52.0 square feet, 1 % more than model year 2022.
31
-------
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Years 2008-2022
70-
60-
cr
CO
O
O
50-
40-
Pickup
Minivan/Van
Fleetwide Average -
-*
Truck SUV
Car SUV
Sedan/Wagon
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
2022
Model Year
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year
100%-
76% -
®
n
if)
c
o
-t—'
o
T3
O
50% -
25% -
0% -
2008
2010
2012
2014 2016
Model Year
2018
2020
2022
2024
32
-------
Vehicle Footprint and C02 Emissions
The relationship between vehicle footprint and CO2 emissions is shown in Figure 3.14,
Vehicles with a larger footprint are likely to weigh more and have more frontal area, which
leads to increased aerodynamic resistance. Increased weight and aerodynamic resistance
increase CO2 emissions and decreases fuel economy. The general trend of increasing
footprint and CO2 emissions holds true for vehicles from model year 2008 and model year
2022, although vehicles produced in model year 2022 are projected to produce roughly
20% less C02 emissions than model year 2008 vehicles of a comparable footprint. Electric
vehicles are shown in Figure 3.14 with zero tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of footprint.
As more electric vehicles enter the market, the relationship between footprint and tailpipe
CO2 emissions will become much flatter, or less sensitive to footprint.
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and CO2 Emissions
1000
Model Year
• 2008
• 2022
750 -
E
S
tM
O
O
-o
CO
Q)
500
250
0-
• •
—1—
40
—1—
50
—1—
60
—1—
70
30
Footprint (sq ft)
33
-------
E. Vehicle Type and Attribute Tradeoffs
The past 45+ years of data show striking changes in the mix of vehicle types, and the
attributes of those vehicles, produced for sale in the United States. In the two decades
prior to 2004, technology innovation and market trends generally resulted in increased
vehicle power and weight (due to increasing vehicle size and content) while average new
vehicle fuel economy steadily decreased and C02 emissions correspondingly increased.
Since model year 2004, the combination of technology innovation and market trends have
resulted in average new vehicle fuel economy increasing 35%, horsepower increasing 23%,
and weight increasing 5%. Footprint has increased 6% since EPA began tracking it in model
year 2008. These metrics are all at record highs, and horsepower, weight, and footprint are
projected to increase again in model year 2023, as shown in Figure 3.15.
The changes within each of these metrics is due to the combination of design and
technology changes within each vehicle type, as well as the market shifts between vehicle
types. For example, overall new vehicle footprint has increased within each vehicle type
since model year 2008, but the average new vehicle footprint has increased more than the
increase in any individual vehicle type over that time span, due to market shifts towards
larger vehicle types. Fuel economy has also increased in all vehicle types since model year
2008, however the market shift towards less efficient vehicle types has offset some of the
fleetwide fuel economy and C02 emission benefits that otherwise would have been
achieved through improving technology.
Vehicle fuel economy and CO2 emissions are clearly related to vehicle attributes
investigated in this section, namely weight, horsepower, and footprint. Future trends in fuel
economy and CO2 emissions will be dependent, at least in part, by design choices related to
these attributes.
34
-------
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, Horsepower, and
Footprint
LO
r-
O")
0
Q
C
CO
a)
O)
c
CO
_c
O
CO
o
o
CN
c
CO
0
o>
c
03
_C
O
_ — •
Footprint
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
100%-
75% -
50% -
25% -
0%-
-25% -
Weight
~i 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Real-World Fuel Economy
Horsepower
-------
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Model Year
Model Year
Real-World
co2
(g/mi)
Real-World
FE
(mpg)
Weight
(lbs)
Horsepower
(HP)
0 to 60
(s)
Footprint
(ft2)
Car
Production
Share
Truck
Production
Share
1975
681
13.1
4,060
137
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
1980
466
19.2
3,228
104
15.6
-
83.5%
16.5%
1985
417
21.3
3,271
114
14.1
-
75.2%
24.8%
1990
420
21.2
3,426
135
11.5
-
70.4%
29.6%
1995
434
20.5
3,613
158
10.1
-
63.5%
36.5%
2000
450
19.8
3,821
181
9.8
-
58.8%
41.2%
2005
447
19.9
4,059
209
9.0
-
55.6%
44.4%
2010
394
22.6
4,001
214
8.8
48.5
62.8%
37.2%
2011
399
22.3
4,126
230
8.5
49.5
57.8%
42.2%
2012
377
23.6
3,979
222
8.5
48.8
64.4%
35.6%
2013
368
24.2
4,003
226
8.4
49.1
64.1%
35.9%
2014
369
24.1
4,060
230
8.3
49.7
59.3%
40.7%
2015
360
24.6
4,035
229
8.3
49.4
57.4%
42.6%
2016
359
24.7
4,035
230
8.3
49.5
55.3%
44.7%
2017
357
24.9
4,093
234
8.2
49.8
52.6%
47.4%
2018
353
25.1
4,137
241
8.0
50.4
48.0%
52.0%
2019
356
24.9
4,156
245
7.9
50.8
44.4%
55.6%
2020
349
25.4
4,166
246
7.8
50.9
43.9%
56.1%
2021
347
25.4
4,289
253
7.7
51.5
37.1%
62.9%
2022
337
26.0
4,303
259
7.6
51.6
36.9%
63.1%
2023
(prelim)
320
26.9
4,439
272
7.3
52.0
34.6%
65.4%
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
36
-------
Table 3.2. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Model Year
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
1975
80.6%
660
13.5
0.1%
799
11.1
1.7%
806
11.0
4.5%
800
11.1
13.1%
746
11.9
1980
83.5%
446
20.0
0.0%
610
14.6
1.6%
676
13.2
2.1%
629
14.1
12.7%
541
16.5
1985
74.6%
387
23.0
0.6%
443
20.1
4.5%
538
16.5
5.9%
537
16.5
14.4%
489
18.2
1990
69.8%
381
23.3
0.5%
All
18.8
5.1%
541
16.4
10.0%
498
17.8
14.5%
511
17.4
1995
62.0%
379
23.4
1.5%
499
17.8
10.5%
555
16.0
11.0%
492
18.1
15.0%
526
16.9
2000
55.1%
388
22.9
3.7%
497
17.9
15.2%
555
16.0
10.2%
478
18.6
15.8%
534
16.7
2005
50.5%
379
23.5
5.1%
440
20.2
20.6%
531
16.7
9.3%
460
19.3
14.5%
561
15.8
2010
54.5%
340
26.2
8.2%
386
23.0
20.7%
452
19.7
5.0%
442
20.1
11.5%
527
16.9
2011
47.8%
344
25.8
10.0%
378
23.5
25.5%
449
19.8
4.3%
424
20.9
12.3%
516
17.2
2012
55.0%
322
27.6
9.4%
381
23.3
20.6%
445
20.0
4.9%
418
21.3
10.1%
516
17.2
2013
54.1%
313
28.4
10.0%
365
24.3
21.8%
427
20.8
3.8%
422
21.1
10.4%
509
17.5
2014
49.2%
313
28.4
10.1%
364
24.4
23.9%
412
21.6
4.3%
418
21.3
12.4%
493
18.0
2015
47.2%
306
29.0
10.2%
353
25.1
28.1%
406
21.9
3.9%
408
21.8
10.7%
474
18.8
2016
43.8%
303
29.2
11.5%
338
26.2
29.1%
400
22.2
3.9%
410
21.7
11.7%
471
18.9
2017
41.0%
293
30.2
11.6%
339
26.1
31.7%
398
22.3
3.6%
399
22.2
12.1%
470
18.9
2018
36.7%
286
30.8
11.3%
324
27.4
35.0%
384
23.1
3.1%
389
22.8
13.9%
466
19.1
2019
32.7%
285
30.9
11.7%
323
27.5
36.5%
378
23.5
3.4%
396
22.4
15.6%
467
19.0
2020
30.9%
277
31.7
13.0%
310
28.4
38.7%
374
23.8
2.9%
379
23.4
14.4%
465
19.2
2021
25.7%
270
32.2
11.4%
278
31.0
44.7%
368
24.1
2.2%
322
27.3
16.1%
463
19.3
2022
26.5%
260
33.2
10.4%
250
33.4
43.8%
364
24.2
2.9%
339
26.0
16.4%
444
20.0
2023 (prelim)
22.5%
250
33.9
12.1%
219
36.8
46.7%
344
25.3
2.2%
331
26.5
16.5%
420
20.9
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
37
-------
Table 3.3. Model Year 2022 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer
Real-World Real-World
Manufacturer
co2
(g/mi)
FE
(mpg)
Weight
(lbs)
Horsepower
(HP)
0 to 60
(s)
Footprint
(ft2)
BMW
344
25.3
4585
313
6.2
50.5
Ford
380
23.1
4639
295
6.9
55.9
GM
406
22.0
4686
276
7.6
56.0
Honda
309
28.7
3810
208
8.0
48.3
Hyundai
302
29.1
3756
201
8.2
48.3
Kia
306
28.6
3790
210
8.1
48.8
Mazda
328
27.0
3860
196
8.9
46.3
Mercedes
371
23.8
4688
299
6.6
52.2
Nissan
322
27.4
4018
221
8.3
49.1
Stellantis
415
21.3
4837
310
7.1
56.7
Subaru
318
27.9
3977
203
8.9
46.3
Tesla
0
119.3
4364
452
4.2
50.8
Toyota
319
27.8
4137
225
8.0
49.7
VW
333
26.1
4302
261
7.3
48.6
Other
299
28.1
4490
296
7.7
49.2
All Manufacturers
337
26.0
4303
259
7.6
51.6
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
38
-------
Table 3.4. Model Year 2022 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Prod
C02
FE
Manufacturer
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
BMW
43.5%
313
27.8
6.9%
344
25.8
50%
371
23.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ford
3.0%
426
20.9
8.4%
201
38.5
51%
390
22.8
2.5%
359
24.8
35.3%
406
21.7
GM
11.0%
276
31.0
14.0%
306
29.0
38%
407
21.9
-
-
-
37.0%
480
18.7
Honda
46.1%
265
33.5
6.2%
301
29.5
39%
344
25.9
5.7%
377
23.6
3.3%
424
21.0
Hyundai
30.5%
242
35.6
27.7%
303
29.1
42%
345
25.7
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kia
46.3%
243
35.3
6.1%
318
28.0
43%
363
24.4
4.7%
386
23.0
-
-
-
Mazda
15.4%
289
30.6
-
-
-
85%
336
26.5
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
28.8%
325
26.7
13.2%
335
26.3
52%
402
22.1
6.0%
404
22.0
-
-
-
Nissan
54.9%
273
32.2
6.1%
275
32.3
25%
377
23.6
-
-
-
14.6%
436
20.4
Stellantis
11.2%
411
21.6
1.8%
336
26.4
44%
398
22.0
10.3%
347
25.0
32.3%
466
19.2
Subaru
18.1%
317
28.0
-
-
-
82%
318
27.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tesla
47.3%
0
125.7
45.9%
0
113.5
7%
0
117.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toyota
33.2%
252
35.1
9.4%
313
28.4
39%
341
26.0
3.7%
249
35.7
15.3%
433
20.5
VW
36.0%
300
28.9
2.5%
199
36.4
62%
357
24.4
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
14.1%
216
36.9
21.0%
287
29.8
59%
347
25.0
0.6%
340
26.2
4.9%
0
69.1
All Manufacturers
26.5%
260
33.2
10.4%
250
33.4
44%
364
24.2
2.9%
339
26.0
16.4%
444
20.0
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
39
-------
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021-2023 (ft2)
Manufacturer
Final MY 2021
Final MY 2022
Preliminary MY2023
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
BMW
48.1
52.7
50.1
48.3
52.8
50.5
47.7
52.8
49.6
Ford
47.6
58.8
57.2
48.1
56.9
55.9
49.2
58.9
58.0
GM
45.4
60.0
56.9
46.1
59.3
56.0
46.2
59.5
56.3
Honda
46.6
49.5
47.9
46.3
50.4
48.3
46.2
50.5
48.2
Hyundai
46.5
52.4
47.9
46.9
50.3
48.3
47.8
50.5
48.9
Kia
46.1
49.6
47.6
46.6
51.2
48.8
46.3
49.5
48.0
Mazda
45.5
47.0
46.4
44.2
46.7
46.3
43.2
47.4
46.9
Mercedes
49.1
52.4
50.9
50.6
53.4
52.2
51.0
52.8
51.8
Nissan
46.1
51.1
47.6
46.6
52.9
49.1
46.9
51.4
49.3
Stellantis
50.3
56.3
55.5
51.5
57.5
56.7
52.8
56.6
56.2
Subaru
44.9
46.0
45.9
45.2
46.5
46.3
45.3
46.3
46.2
Tesla
50.6
51.4
50.6
50.7
51.7
50.8
50.6
-
50.6
Toyota
46.5
51.9
49.7
46.5
52.0
49.7
46.9
52.7
50.7
VW
47.1
50.8
49.6
46.2
50.1
48.6
46.0
49.8
48.0
Other
44.7
50.8
49.0
45.7
51.1
49.2
47.3
54.6
53.5
All Manufacturers
46.9
54.3
51.5
47.2
54.2
51.6
47.5
54.4
52.0
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
40
-------
4. Vehicle Technology
Since model year 1975, the technology used in vehicles has continually evolved. Today's
vehicles utilize an increasingly wide array of technological solutions developed by the
automotive industry to improve vehicle attributes discussed previously in this report,
including C02 emissions, fuel economy, vehicle power, and acceleration. Automotive
engineers and designers are constantly creating and evaluating new technology and
deciding how, or if, it should be applied to their vehicles. This section of the report looks at
vehicle technology from two perspectives; first, how the industry has adopted specific
technologies over time, and second, how those technologies have impacted CO2 emissions
and fuel economy.
A. T echnology Overview
All vehicles use some type of engine or motor to convert energy stored on the vehicle,
usually in a fuel or battery, into rotational energy to propel the vehicle forward. Internal
combustion engines, for example, typically combust gasoline or diesel fuel to rotate an
output shaft. Internal combustion engines are paired with a transmission to convert the
rotational energy from the relatively narrow range of speeds available at the engine to the
appropriate speed required for driving conditions. The transmission is connected to a
driveline that transfers the rotational energy from the transmission to the two or four
wheels being used to move the vehicle. Each of these components has energy losses, or
inefficiencies, which ultimately increase vehicle CO2 emissions and decrease fuel economy.
A basic illustration of the energy flow through a gasoline vehicle is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow
I
W77777777777Z
Tires
L nrrmA
1 0
Transmission .
1 O
Driveline
engine
~
41
-------
Manufacturers have been adopting many new technologies to improve gasoline internal
combustion engines. Figure 4.2 illustrates manufacturer-specific technology adoption for
model year 2022, where larger circles represent higher adoption rates. For gasoline
engines, technologies such as turbocharged engines (Turbo) and gasoline direct injection
(GDI) allow for more efficient engine design and operation. A growing number of engines
can use GDI or port fuel injection (GDPI); these engines are included with GDI engines in
Figure 4.2 for the first time this year. Cylinder deactivation (CD) allows for only using part of
the engine when less power is needed. Transmissions that have seven or more speeds, and
continuously variable transmissions (CVTs), allow an engine to more frequently operate
near its peak efficiency, providing more efficient average engine operation and a reduction
in fuel usage. Engine stop/start systems can turn off the engine entirely when the vehicle is
stopped to save fuel.
Manufacturers are also adopting hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric
vehicles (EVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Hybrid vehicles store some propulsion energy in
a battery, and often recapture braking energy, allowing for a smaller, more efficiently
operated engine. The hybrid category includes "strong" hybrid systems that can
temporarily power the vehicle without engaging the engine and smaller "mild" hybrid
systems that cannot propel the vehicle on their own. Plug-in hybrids operate similarly to
hybrids, but their batteries can be charged from an external source of electricity, and
generally have a longer electric only operating range. Electric vehicles operate only on
energy stored in a battery that is charged from an external source of electricity and rely
exclusively on electric motors for propulsion instead of an internal combustion engine. Fuel
cell vehicles use a fuel cell stack to create electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually
hydrogen), which then powers an electric motor or motors to propel the vehicle. PHEVs,
EVs, and FCVs offer fundamentally different architectures than shown in Figure 4.1 and
require different metrics10 and an evolving analysis of vehicle technology. Hybrids, PHEVs,
and EVs are a growing portion of the fleet, and most manufacturers have made recent
public announcements committing to billions of dollars in research towards electrification,
and in some cases, manufacturers have announced specific targets for entirely phasing out
internal combustion engines.
The technologies in Figure 4.2 are all being used by manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions
and increase fuel economy. Each of the fourteen largest manufacturers have adopted
several of these technologies into their vehicles, with many manufacturers achieving high
penetrations of several technologies as shown in Figure 4.2. It is also clear that
10 See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of EV and PHEV metrics.
42
-------
manufacturers' strategies to develop and adopt technologies are unique and vary
significantly. Each manufacturer is choosing technologies that best meet the design
requirements of their vehicles, and in many cases, that technology is changing quickly. The
rest of this section will explore how vehicle technology has changed since 1975, the impact
of those technology changes, and the rate at which technology is adopted by the industry.
Figure 4.2. Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2022
Tesla -
100%
Hyundai -
25%
72%
23%
64%
37%
9%
4%
Honda -
39%
69%
30%
64%
36%
77%
10%
Kia -
27%
68%
28%
53%
49%
3%
6%
Subaru -
31%
100%
94%
73%
0%
Toyota -
6%
78%
38%
42%
25%
22%
2%
Nissan -
16%
85%
66%
32%
12%
2%
Mazda -
24%
100%
44%
0%
vw-
81%
93%
3%
90%
72%
17%
8%
BMW-
97%
97%
96%
58%
29%
8%
Mercedes -
90%
97%
3%
97%
64%
30%
3%
Ford -
78%
88%
21%
4%
91%
60%
6%
4%
GM -
49%
94%
49%
11%
72%
76%
2%
Stellantis -
13%
8%
27%
1%
96%
47%
17%
5%
Manufacturers -
37%
73%
16%
26%
59%
50%
10%
7%
—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—
Turbo GDI or Cylinder CVT 7+Gears Non-Hybrid Hybrid PHEV/
GDPI Deactivation StopStart EV/FCV
43
-------
B. Vehicle Propulsion
As discussed above, all vehicles use some type of engine or motor to convert stored energy
into rotational energy to propel the vehicle forward. Over the last 45+ years that EPA has
been collecting data, gasoline internal combustion engines have been the dominant
propulsion technology used in vehicles. Over that time, the technology used in combustion
engines has continually evolved. Modern gasoline combustion engines are continuing that
trend, employing technologies such as direct injection, turbocharging, and cylinder
deactivation to improve efficiency and performance.
A growing portion of new vehicles rely on partial or full electrification to achieve
operational improvements, reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions, and increase fuel economy.
Many new vehicles utilize stop-start technology, which turns off the engine during idle
conditions and uses the vehicle battery to restart the engine when needed. Mild hybrids
generally employ stop-start systems and have an electric motor that can assist the engine
with moving the vehicle forward at launch. Strong hybrids generally have larger batteries
and motors that can provide more power to move the vehicle or can directly drive the
vehicle without the engine. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) add the capability of charging the
vehicle battery from an external source, namely electricity from the power grid. Full electric
vehicles (EVs) rely on electric motors to provide propulsion and use energy stored onboard
in a battery. EVs are charged with electricity from the power grid, and do not have an
internal combustion engine. Most hybrids, PHEVs, and EVs also utilize regenerative braking
to recapture braking energy that otherwise would have been lost as heat, and further
improve vehicle efficiency. This "spectrum of electrification" is creating a wide range of
technology implementation strategies on modern vehicles, and offering numerous
pathways to improve vehicle efficiency, emissions, and performance.
The trend in vehicle propulsion technology since model year 1975 is shown in Figure 4.3.
Vehicles that use an engine that operates exclusively on gasoline (including hybrids, but not
plug-in hybrids which also use electricity) have held at least 95% of the light-duty vehicle
market in almost every year prior to model year 2022 (vehicles with diesel engines briefly
captured almost 6% of the market in model year 1981). In model year 2022, the
combination of EVs, PHEVs, FCVs, and diesel vehicles accounted for 7.5% of all production.
The production of EVs is expected to grow in future model years, transitioning to a
technology found across multiple vehicle types and models. Projected model year 2023
data suggests EVs alone will capture almost 10% of the market, and perhaps begin to
challenge the dominance of vehicles relying exclusively on gasoline internal combustion
engines.
44
-------
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology
-------
Engines that use gasoline as a fuel (including hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids) are
further divided based on three broad parameters for Figure 4.3: fuel delivery, valve timing,
and number of valves per cylinder. These parameters enable better control of the
combustion process, which in turn can allow for lower CO2 emissions, increased fuel
economy, and/or more power. Fuel delivery refers to the method of creating an air and fuel
mixture for combustion. The technology for fuel delivery has changed over time from
carburetors to fuel injection systems located in the intake system, and more recently to
gasoline direct injection (GDI) systems that spray gasoline directly into the engine cylinder.
Figure 4.3 also breaks out engines that can use GDI or port fuel injection (GDPI) depending
on the engine operating conditions.
The valves on each cylinder of the engine determine the amount and timing of air entering
and exhaust gases exiting the cylinder during the combustion process. Valve timing has
evolved from fixed timing to variable valve timing (WT), which can allow for much more
precise control. In addition, the number of valves per cylinder has generally increased,
again offering more control of air and exhaust flows. Combined, these changes have led to
modern engines with much more precise control of the combustion process.
Figure 4.3 shows many different engine designs as they have entered, and in many cases
exited, the automotive market. Some fleetwide changes occurred gradually, but in some
cases (for example trucks in the late 1980s), engine technology experienced widespread
change in only a few years. Evolving technology offers opportunities to improve fuel
economy, CO2 emissions, power, and other vehicle parameters. The following analysis will
look at technology trends within gasoline engines (including hybrids), diesel engines, and
will spotlight emerging trends in PHEVs and EVs, a rapidly growing segment of the market.
Each of these categories of engine technologies has unique properties, metrics, and trends
over time.
Gasoline Engines
Since EPA began tracking vehicle data in 1975, over 650 million vehicles have been
produced for sale in the United States. As shown in Figure 4.3, vehicles relying on a
gasoline engine as the only source of power have been the overwhelmingly dominant
technology for that time span, although EVs and PHEVs are now capturing a growing
portion of new vehicle production. For the purposes of this report, hybrid vehicles are
included with gasoline engines, as are "flex fuel" vehicles that are capable of operating on
gasoline or a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85).
46
-------
Engine Size and Displacement
Engine size is generally described in one of two ways, either the number of cylinders or the
total displacement of the engine (the total volume of the cylinders). Engine size is
important because larger engines strongly correlate with higher fuel use. Figure 4.4 shows
the trends in gasoline engine size over time, as measured by number of cylinders; note the
gap between the top of the stacked bar and the 100% threshold corresponds to the share
of vehicles relying on technologies other than gasoline engines, primarily diesel engines in
the 1980s and EVs more recently.
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders11
100%-
0)
I
ro
JZ
w
c
o
'-t-J
u
D
"D
O
75%-
50%-
25% -
0%-
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Cylinders
Less than 4
4 Cylinder
¦ 5 Cylinder
¦ 6 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
1 More than 8
Model Year
In the mid and late 1970s, the 8-cylinder gasoline engine was dominant, accounting for well
over half of all new vehicle production. Between model year 1979 and 1980, there was a
11 Figure 4.4 shows the trends in gasoline engine size over time, as measured by number of cylinders; note the
gap between the top of the stacked bar and the 100% threshold corresponds to the share of vehicles without
gasoline engines, primarily diesel engines in the 1980s and EVs in the post-2010 era.
47
-------
significant change in the market, as 8-cylinder engine production share dropped from 52%
to 23%, and those engines were replaced with smaller 4-cylinder and some 6-cylinder
engines. From model year 1987 through 2004, production moved back towards larger 6-
cylinder and 8-cylinder engines. This trend reversed again in 2005 as production began
trending back towards 4-cylinder engines. Four-cylinder gasoline engines are now the most
popular engine option, capturing about 55% of the market in model year 2022.
Overall engine size, as measured by the total volume of all the engine's cylinders, is directly
related to the number of cylinders. As vehicles have moved towards engines with a lower
number of cylinders, the total engine size, or displacement, is also at an all-time low. The
average new vehicle in model year 1975 had a displacement of nearly 300 cubic inches,
compared to an average of 171 cubic inches in model year 2022. Gasoline engine
displacement per cylinder has been relatively stable over the time of this report (around 35
cubic inches per cylinder since 1980), so the reduction in overall new vehicle engine
displacement is almost entirely due to the shift towards engines with fewer cylinders.
The contrasting trends in gasoline-powered vehicle horsepower (at an all-time high) and
engine displacement (at an all-time low) highlight the continuing improvement in gasoline
engines. These improvements are due to the development of new technologies and
ongoing design improvements that allow for more efficient use of fuel or reduce internal
engine friction. One additional way to examine the relationship between gasoline engine
horsepower and displacement is to look at the trend in specific power (HP/Displacement),
which is a metric to compare the power output of an engine relative to its size.
Specific power has doubled between model year 1975 and model year 2022. The rate at
which specific power has increased has been remarkably steady, as shown in Figure 4.5.
The specific power of new vehicle gasoline engines has increased by about 0.02
horsepower per cubic inch every year for 45+ years. Considering the numerous and
significant changes to engines over this time span, changes in consumer preferences, and
the external pressures on vehicle purchases, the long-standing linearity of this trend is
noteworthy. The roughly linear increase in specific power does not appear to be slowing.
Turbocharged engines, direct injection, higher compression ratios, and many other engine
technologies are likely to continue increasing engine specific power.
Figure 4.5 also shows two other important engine metrics, the amount of fuel consumed
compared to the overall size of the engine (Fuel Consumption/Displacement), and the
amount of fuel consumed relative to the amount of power produced by an engine (Fuel
Consumption/HP). The amount of fuel consumed by a gasoline engine in model year 2022,
relative to the total displacement, is about 13% lower than in model year 1975. Fuel
48
-------
consumption relative to engine horsepower has fallen more than 70% since model year
1975. Taken as a whole, the trend lines in Figure 4.5 clearly show that gasoline engine
improvements over time have been steady and continual and have resulted in impressive
improvements to internal combustion engines.
Figure 4.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics
200%
150%
ID
100%
0
0
c
CO
g, 50%
1
_c
o
0%
-50%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Fuel Delivery Systems and Valvetrains
All gasoline engines require a fuel delivery system that controls the flow of fuel delivered
into the engine. The process for controlling fuel flow has changed significantly over time,
allowing for much more control over the combustion process and thus more efficient
engines. In the 1970s and early 1980s, nearly all gasoline engines used carburetors to
meter fuel delivered to the engine. Carburetors were replaced over time with fuel injection
systems; first throttle body injection (TBI) systems, then port fuel injection (PFI) systems,
and more recently gasoline direct injection (GDI) and combined gasoline direct and port
injection engines (GDPI), as shown in Figure 4.3. TBI and PFI systems use fuel injectors to
electronically deliver fuel and mix it with air outside of the engine cylinder; the resulting air
and fuel mixture is then delivered to the engine cylinders for combustion. Engines that
utilize GDI spray fuel directly into the air in the engine cylinder for better control of the
49
-------
combustion process. Engines using GDI were first introduced into the market with very
limited production in model year 2007. The use of GDI has increased in subsequent years
to the point where 73% of the model year 2022 fleet had either GDI or GDPI. In model year
2022, GDI engines were installed in 52% of model year 2022 vehicles, while GDPI engines
were installed in 21% of the new vehicles.
Another key aspect of engine design is the valvetrain. Each engine cylinder must have a set
of valves that allow for air (or an air/fuel mixture) to flow into the engine cylinder prior to
combustion and for exhaust gases to exit the cylinder after combustion. The number of
valves per cylinder and the method of controlling the valves (i.e., the valvetrain) directly
impacts the overall efficiency of the engine. Generally, engines with four valves per cylinder
instead of two, and valvetrains that can alter valve timing during the combustion cycle can
provide more engine control and increase engine power and efficiency.
This report began tracking multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per
cylinder) for cars in model year 1986 and for trucks in model year 1994. Since that time,
about 90% of the fleet has converted to multi-valve design. While some three- and five-
valve engines have been produced, the majority of multi-valve engines are based on four
valves per cylinder. Engines with four valves generally use two valves for air intake and two
valves for exhaust. In addition, this report began tracking variable valve timing (VVT)
technology for cars in model year 1990 and for trucks in model year 2000, and since then
nearly the entire fleet has adopted this technology. Figure 4.3 shows the evolution of
engine technology, including fuel delivery method and the introduction of VVT and multi-
valve engines.
As shown in Figure 4.3, fuel delivery and valvetrain technologies have often been
developed simultaneously. Nearly all carbureted engines relied on fixed valve timing and
had two valves per cylinder, as did early port-injected engines. Port-injected engines largely
developed into engines with both multi-valve and WT technology. Engines with GDI are
almost exclusively using multi-valve and WT technology. These four engine groupings, or
packages, represent a large share of the engines produced over the timespan covered by
this report.
Figure 4.6 shows the changes in specific power and fuel consumption per horsepower for
each of these engine packages over time. There is a very clear increase in specific power of
each engine package as engines moved from carbureted engines to engines with two
valves, fixed timing and port fuel injection, then to engines with multi-valve WT and port
fuel injection, and finally to GDI engines. Some of the increase for GDI engines may also be
due to the fact that GDI engines are often paired with turbochargers to further increase
50
-------
power. Vehicles with fixed valve timing and two valves per cylinder have been limited in
recent years and are no longer included in Figure 4.6 after model year 2015 due to very
limited production.
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages
E
O
TO
CL
CO
Q
£
X
g
o
CL
Q
0)
Q.
CO
CL
I
o
o
CO
Ql
X
c
o
Q.
E
13
(A
C
o
O
Variable Timing,
Multi-Valve Engines
0.05-
0.04-
0.03-
0.021
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Variable Timing,
Multi-Valve Engines
Fixed Timing,
Two-Valve Engines
Engines
-------
Turbocharging
Turbochargers increase the power that an engine can produce by forcing more air, and
thus fuel, into the engine. An engine with a turbocharger can produce more power than an
identically sized engine that is naturally aspirated or does not have a turbocharger.
Turbochargers are powered using the pressure of the engine exhaust as it leaves the
engine. Superchargers operate the same way as turbochargers but are directly connected
to the engine for power, instead of using the engine exhaust. Alternate turbocharging and
supercharging methods, such as electric superchargers, are also beginning to emerge. A
limited number of new vehicles utilize both a turbocharger and supercharger in one engine
package.
Gasoline turbocharged engines have grown steadily in the marketplace, accounting for
more than 35% of all production in model year 2022, as shown in Figure 4.7. Many of these
engines are applying turbochargers to create "turbo downsized" engine packages that can
combine the improved fuel economy of smaller engines during normal operation but can
provide the power of a larger engine by engaging the turbocharger when necessary. As
evidence of this turbo downsizing, about 70% of gasoline turbocharged engines are 4-
cylinder engines in model year 2022 with most other turbochargers being used in 6-
cylinder and 3-cylinder engines. Model year 2023 is projected to be a similar distribution, as
shown in Figure 4.8.
Most of the current gasoline turbocharged engines also use GDI and WT. This allows for
more efficient engine operation, helps increase the resistance to premature combustion
(engine knock), and reduces turbo lag (the amount of time it takes for a turbocharger to
engage). In model year 2022, almost 90% of new vehicles with gasoline turbocharged
engines also used GDI.
Figure 4.9 examines the distribution of engine displacement and power of gasoline
turbocharged engines over time. In model year 2011, turbochargers were used mostly in
cars, and were available on engines both above and below the average engine
displacement. The biggest increase in turbocharger use over the last few years has been in
cars with engine displacement well below the average displacement. The distribution of
horsepower for turbocharged engines is much closer to the average horsepower, even
though the displacement is smaller, reflecting the higher power per displacement of
turbocharged engines. This trend towards adding turbochargers to smaller, less powerful
engines is consistent with the turbo downsizing trend.
52
-------
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
¦ Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
I Pickup
2003
2008
2013
Model Year
2018
2023
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
Cylinders
3 Cylinder
4 Cylinder
M 6 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
¦ Other
I
¦ Bill
llllllll
2003
2008
2013
Model Year
2018
2023
53
-------
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and
Horsepower, Model Year 2011, 2014, and 2022
Horsepower
Displacement (cubic inches)
o
o
o
c
o
o
3
¦o
o
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
Mean HP,
All Cars
N
, Mean HP,
All Trucks
Mean HP,
All Cars
N
Mean HP,
All Cars.
. Mean HP,
All Trucks
Mean HP,
All Trucks
I I
Mean Displacerr
All Cars
ent.
. Mean Displacement,
All Trucks
Mean Displacement,
All Cars
. Mean Displacement,
All Trucks
N)
O
NJ
O
| Truck
Car
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
54
-------
Cylinder Deactivation
Cylinder deactivation is an engine management approach that turns off the flow of fuel to
one or more engine cylinders, and the corresponding spark plugs, when driving conditions
do not require full engine power. This effectively allows a large engine to act as a smaller
engine when the additional cylinders are not needed, increasing engine efficiency and fuel
economy. The use of cylinder deactivation in gasoline vehicles steadily climbed through
model year 2021, but fell slightly, less than one percentage point, in model year 2022 to
16% of all new vehicles. Projected model year 2023 data suggests another small drop in the
use of cylinder deactivation across new vehicles.
Stop/Start
Engine stop/start technology allows the engine to be automatically turned off at idle and
very quickly restarted when the driver releases the brake pedal. By turning the engine off, a
vehicle can eliminate the fuel use and CO2 emissions that would have occurred if the
engine was left running. This report began tracking stop/start technology in model year
2012 at less than one percent. Since then, the use of stop/start has increased to about 50%
of all new vehicles in model year 2022, excluding hybrid vehicles. While non-hybrid
stop/start systems have been used in a wide range of applications, they are found more
often in larger vehicles and engines, as shown in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11.
55
-------
Figure 4.10. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Vehicle Type
50%
40% -
30% -
20% -
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
| Pickup
!->>
10%
0%-
¦aElhllnl
2010
2015
2020
Model Year
Figure 4.11. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Number of Cylinders
50%
40%
<1)
03
« 30%
20%
10%
0%-
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
6 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
1 Other
2010
2015
2020
Model Year
56
-------
Hybrids
Gasoline hybrid vehicles feature a battery pack that is larger than the battery found on a
typical gasoline vehicle, which allows these vehicles to store and strategically apply
electrical energy to supplement the gasoline engine. The result is that the engine can be
smaller than what would be needed in a non-hybrid vehicle, and the engine can be
operated near its peak efficiency more often. Hybrids also frequently utilize regenerative
braking, which uses a motor/generator to capture energy from braking instead of losing
that energy to friction and heat, as in traditional friction braking, and stop/start technology
to turn off the engine at idle. The combination of these strategies can result in significant
reductions in fuel use and CO2 emissions.
The hybrid category includes "strong" hybrid systems that can temporarily power the
vehicle without engaging the engine. It also includes "mild" hybrid systems that are capable
of regenerative braking and many of the same functions as other hybrids, but utilize a
smaller battery and electrical motor that cannot directly drive the vehicle. For the purposes
of this report, vehicles with a 48V battery or smaller have been classified as "mild" hybrids,
while larger batteries are classified as "strong" hybrids.
Hybrids were first introduced in the U.S. marketplace in model year 2000 with the Honda
Insight. As more models and options were introduced into the market, hybrid production
increased to 3.8% of all vehicles in model year 2010, before slowly declining to 1.8% of new
vehicle production in model year 2016. Since model year 2016 however, the percent of new
vehicles that are hybrids has steadily grown and reached a new high of 10.2% of all new
vehicles in model year 2022. Hybrid growth is projected to continue growing in model year
2023, to 13.6% of new vehicle production.
Early hybrids were mostly the sedan/wagon vehicle type, but recent growth in other vehicle
types, particularly truck SUVs, has propelled recent growth, as shown in Figure 4.12. In
model year 2020, the production of hybrids in the truck SUV category surpassed the
production of sedan/wagon hybrids for the first time and did so by more than 50%. Hybrids
have also begun to penetrate the pickup and minivan/van vehicle types. Sedan/wagon
hybrids accounted for only 25% of all hybrid production in model year 2022. Hybrid
vehicles typically use a 4-cylinder engine, although an increasing number of 6- and 8-
cylinder engines are being used in hybrid systems, as shown in Figure 4.13.
While strong hybrids have grown market penetration in recent years, the growth of mild
hybrids from very limited numbers to current production has contributed to the overall
market share rise for hybrids. Mild hybrids accounted for about 40% of hybrid production
in model year 2022, as shown in Figure 4.14.
57
-------
Figure 4.12. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
1 Minivan/Van
| Pickup
(1
llllLIII
2000
2005
2010
Model Year
2015
2020
Figure 4,13. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
12.5%-
10.0%
2
ctJ
5 7'5%
c
o
0
~
e 5.0%
01
2.5%
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
| 6 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
I Other
0%
2000 2005
2010 2015
Model Year
2020
58
-------
Figure 4.14. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share Hybrid Type
12.5%
10.0%-
a>
OJ
5 7-5%
c
o
o
3
2 5.0%-
Ql
2.5% -
0%
Plug-In Hybrid Electric, Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles
PHEVs and EVs are two types of vehicles that can store electricity from an external source
onboard the vehicle, utilizing that stored energy to propel the vehicle. PHEVs are similar to
gasoline hybrids discussed previously, but the battery packs in PHEVs can be charged from
an external electricity source; this cannot be done in gasoline hybrids. EVs operate using
only energy stored in a battery from external charging. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell
stack to create electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually hydrogen), which then
powers an electric motor or motors to propel the vehicle.
EVs rely on electricity stored in a battery for fuel. Combustion does not occur onboard the
vehicle, and therefore there are no tailpipe emissions created by the vehicle. The electricity
used to charge EVs can create emissions at the power plant. The amount of emission varies
depending on the fuel source of the electricity, which can in turn vary based on location
and time of day. The electric grid in the US has also been changing over time, as natural gas
and renewable energy resources make up a growing portion of electricity generation
across the US. Depending on the source of electricity, EVs often result in lower CO2
emissions over their lifetime compared to gasoline vehicles.
2000
2005
2010 2015
Model Year
2020
59
-------
Since EVs do not use gasoline, the familiar metric of miles per gallon cannot be applied to
EVs. Instead, EVs are rated in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent (mpge), which is the
number of miles that an EV travels on an amount of electrical energy equivalent to the
energy in a gallon of gasoline. This metric enables a direct comparison of energy efficiency
between EVs and gasoline vehicles. EVs generally have a much higher energy efficiency
than gasoline vehicles because electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline
engines.
PHEVs can operate either on electricity stored in a battery, or gasoline, allowing for a wide
range of engine designs and strategies for the utilization of stored electrical energy during
typical driving. Most PHEVs will operate on electricity only, like an EV, for a limited range,
and then will operate like a strong hybrid until their battery is recharged from an external
source. The use of electricity to provide some or all of the energy required for propulsion
can significantly lower fuel consumption and tailpipe CO2 emissions. For a much more
detailed discussion of EV and PHEV metrics, as well as upstream emissions from electricity,
see Appendix E.
The production of EVs and PHEVs has increased rapidly in recent years. Prior to model year
2011, EVs were available, but generally only in small numbers for lease in California.12 In
model year 2011 the first PHEV, the Chevrolet Volt, was introduced along with the Nissan
Leaf EV. Many additional models have been introduced since, and in model year 2022
combined EV/PHEV production reached almost 7% of all new vehicles. Combined EV and
PHEV production is projected to reach a new high of almost 12% of all production in model
year 2023. In model year 2022 there were five hydrogen FCVs produced, but they were only
available in the state of California and Hawaii and in very small numbers. However there
continues to be interest in FCVs as a future technology. The trend in EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
are shown in Figure 4.15.
12 At least over the timeframe covered by this report. EVs were initially produced more than 100 years ago.
60
-------
Figure 4.15. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs13
12%-
9% -
£
03
.c
CO
O 6%-
o
3
TD
O
V
CL
3%-
0%-
The inclusion of model year 2022 EV, PHEV, and FCV production reduced the overall new
vehicle average CO2 emissions by 22 g/mi and increased new vehicle average fuel economy
by 1.2 mpg, as shown in Figure 4.16, Without EV, PHEV, and FCV production, the C02
emissions and fuel economy of the remaining new vehicles was relatively flat.
Plug-In Hybrid EV
| Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Vehicle
-¦Hill
ll
t 1 1 1 1 r
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
13 EV production data were supplemented with data from Ward's and other publicly available production data
for model years prior to 2011. The data only include offerings from original equipment manufacturers and does
not include data on vehicles converted to alternative fuels in the aftermarket.
61
-------
Figure 4.16 Impact of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
400
E
o>
O
O
TD
380
2 360
340 ¦
TO
0)
01
320
300
I t
Without EVs, PHEVs,
§ S and FCVs 359
• • • •
• • •
I
All New Vehicles: 337
All New Vehicles: 26 0
t t • * •
t t
Without EVs, PHEVs,
and FCVs: 24.8
2010
2015
2020
2025
Model Year
Figure 4.17 and Figure 4.18 show the production share by vehicle type for EVs and PHEVs.
Early production of EVs was mostly in the sedan/wagon vehicle type, but recent model
years have shown growth in car SUVs and truck SUVs. Electric pickup trucks first entered
the market in model year 2022, along with new EV models across many of the vehicle
types. Production of PHEVs has shifted from exclusively sedan/wagons to mostly truck
SUVs, with limited production across the sedan/wagon, car SUV, and minivan/van vehicle
types.
-------
Figure 4.17. Electric Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type
CO
JZ
CO
c
o
o
~
"O
o
10%
7.5%-
5%
2,5%
0%-
VehicleType
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
| Pickup
.nil
2010
2015
2020
Model Year
18. Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type
2010
2015
2020
Model Year
-------
Figure 4.19 shows the range and fuel economy trends for EVs and PHEVs14, The average
range of new EVs has climbed substantially. In model year 2022, the average new EV range
is 305 miles, or more than four times the range of an average EV in 2011. The range values
shown for PHEVs are the charge-depleting range, where the vehicle is operating on energy
in the battery from an external source. This is generally the all-electric range of the PHEV,
although some vehicles also use the gasoline engine in small amounts during charge
depleting operation. The average charge depleting range for PHEVs has remained largely
unchanged since model year 2011.
Figure 4.19. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy for EVs and PHEVs
Range (mi) Fuel Economy (mpge)
Model Year
The fuel economy of electric vehicles has also improved about 10% since model year 2011,
as measured in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge). In model year 2022 the fuel
economy of average new EVs fell, mostly due to the introduction of larger vehicles that
have lower overall fuel economy ratings. The combined fuel economy of PHEVs has been
more variable but is about 30% lower in model year 2022 than in model year 2011 and is
expected to decrease further in 2023. This may be attributable to the growth of truck SUV
14 The range and fuel economy values in this figure are the combined values from the fuel economy label,
which weights city and highway driving 55% and 45%, as compared to the rest of the report, which uses a 43%
city and 57% highway weighting. See Appendix C for more information.
64
-------
PHEVs, as shown in Figure 4.18. For more information about EV and PHEV metrics, see
Appendix E.
As the number of electric vehicles available continues to increase and diversify, comparing
technology trends across electric vehicles will become more meaningful and important.
Figure 4.20 shows the distribution of EV energy consumption, in terms of kWh per 100
miles, compared to vehicle inertia weight class. There is a general trend that heavier EVs
have a higher energy consumption, but there is a large spread at each inertia weight class.
Within the 5500-pound inertia weight class in particular, EVs have a range of energy
consumption from nearly 25 to 50 kWh per hundred miles. Pickups and truck SUVs
represent the heaviest EVs and are somewhat less efficient than other vehicle types,
consistent with trends across the broader industry.
Figure 4.20. EV Energy Consumption by Weight and Vehicle Type
55-
50-
45-
¦B 40
Q_
E
ZJ
w
c
o
O
>, 35
o>
CD
30-
25-
0'
#
*
I
M
*
VehicleType
Sedan/Wagon
• Car SUV
Truck SUV
• Minivan/Van
• Pickup
3500
4000
4500
5000 5500
Inertia Weight
6000
6500
7000
65
-------
Diesel Engines
Vehicles with diesel engines have been available in the U.S. at least as long as EPA has been
collecting data. However, sales of diesel vehicles have rarely broken more than 1 % of the
overall market. Diesel vehicle sales peaked at 5.9% of the market in model year 1981 but
have been at or below 1 % of production per year since 1985. In MY 2022, diesel vehicles
were slightly below 1% of all new vehicles produced.
Vehicles that rely on diesel fuel often achieve higher fuel economy than gasoline vehicles,
largely because the energy density of diesel fuel is about 15% higher than that of gasoline.
However, there is less of an advantage in terms of CO2 emissions because diesel fuel also
contains about 15% more carbon per gallon, and thus emits more CO2 per gallon burned
than gasoline.
Figure 4.21 shows the production share of diesel engines by vehicle type. Diesel engines
have historically been more prevalent in the sedan/wagon vehicle type, however, since
model year 2015 there have been very few sedan/wagon vehicles with diesel engines and
most light-duty diesel production has been pickups. This report does not include the
largest pickup trucks and work or vocational trucks, which have a higher penetration of
diesel engines. As shown in Figure 4.22, current production of diesel engines for light-duty
vehicles is largely comprised of six-cylinder engines, along with a smaller share of 4-
cylinder engines.
Diesel engines, as with gasoline engines, have improved over time. Figure 4.23 shows the
same metrics and trends that are explored in Figure 4.5 for gasoline engines. The specific
power (HP/displacement) for diesel engines has increased more than 200% since model
year 1975. Fuel consumption per displacement dropped in the 1980s but has increased
back to about 20% below model year 1975. Finally, fuel consumption per horsepower for
diesel engines has declined about 75% since model year 1975.
66
-------
Figure 4.21. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
| Minivan/Van
I Pickup
..¦¦lllll.il 1111
"i 1 i i i i i i i i
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Figure 4.22. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
6%
2 4%
co
sz
CO
c
o
t>
zs
-O
o
Dl 2%
o%-
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
16 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
I Other
.ii
li
31..
-...Illlll.l.ll
—i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
67
-------
Figure 4.23. Percent Change for Specific Diesel Engine Metrics
250%
200%
m
£5 150%
s
d 100%
0
CB
-c 50%
O
0%
-50%
Other Engine Technologies
in addition to the engine technologies described above, there have been a small number of
other technologies available in the U.S. marketplace over the years. Vehicles that operate
on compressed natural gas (CNG) are one example, but there are currently no CNG
vehicles available from vehicle manufacturers (aftermarket conversions are not included
here). This report will continue to track all vehicles produced for sale in the U.S., and if CNG
or other technologies reach widespread availability they will be included in future versions
of this report.
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
68
-------
C. Vehicle Drivetrain
A vehicle drivetrain includes all components responsible for transmitting rotational energy
from an engine or electric motor to the wheels. The design of the drivetrain impacts CO2
emissions and fuel economy in two ways; first through direct energy losses or inefficiencies
within the drivetrain, and second by allowing a vehicle's engine, or electric motor, to
operate in a more efficient manner.
For non-hybrid vehicles with an internal combustion engine, the drivetrain includes a
transmission and the driveline (a driveshaft, differential, axle shafts and related
components), as shown in Figure 4.1. Mild hybrids generally use a conventional
transmission and drivetrain, but strong hybrids often replace the transmission entirely with
a planetary gearset or some other configuration. PHEVs generally resemble full hybrids but
can have numerous configurations that allow for complicated energy optimization. Electric
vehicles generally use a single speed transmission, and do not need the numerous gears
required by combustion engines. However, some high-performance electric vehicles are
now being produced with 2-speed transmissions (e.g., Porsche Taycan).
Transmissions
There are two important aspects of transmissions that impact overall vehicle efficiency and
fuel economy. First, as torque (rotational force) is transferred through the transmission, a
small amount is lost to friction, which reduces vehicle efficiency. Second, the design of the
transmission impacts how the engine is operated, and generally transmissions with more
speeds offer more opportunity to operate the engine in the most efficient way possible. For
example, a vehicle with an eight-speed transmission will have more flexibility in
determining engine operation than a vehicle with a five-speed transmission. This can lead
to reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions compared to a vehicle that is identical
except for the number of transmission gears.
Transmission designs have been rapidly evolving to increase the number of gears available
and allow for both better engine operation and improved efficiency. The number of gears
in new vehicles continues to increase, as does the use of continuously variable
transmissions (CVTs). Figure 4.24 shows the evolution of transmission production share for
cars and trucks since model year 1980.15 For this analysis, transmissions are separated into
manual transmissions, CVTs, and automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are
further separated into those with and without lockup mechanisms, which can lock up the
15 EPA has incomplete transmission data prior to model year 1980.
69
-------
torque converter in an automatic transmission under certain driving conditions and
improve efficiency. CVTs have also been split into hybrid and non-hybrid versions to reflect
the fact that hybrid CVTs are generally very different mechanically from traditional CVTs.
The hybrid CVT category includes CVTs used for PHEVs.
Dual clutch transmissions (DCTs) are essentially automatic transmissions that operate
internally much more like traditional manual transmissions. The two main advantages of
DCTs are that they can shift very quickly, and they can avoid some of the internal resistance
of a traditional automatic transmission by eliminating the torque converter. Currently,
automaker submissions to EPA do not explicitly identify DCTs as a separate transmission
category. Thus, the introduction of DCTs shows up in Figure 4.24 as a slight increase in
automatic transmissions without torque converters (although some DCTs may still be
reported as traditional automatic transmissions).
In the early 1980s, three-speed automatic transmissions, both with and without lockup
torque converters (shown as L3 and A3), were the most popular transmissions, but by
model year 1985, the four-speed automatic transmission with lockup (L4) became the most
popular transmission, a position it would hold for 25 years. Over 80% of all new vehicles
produced in model year 1999 were equipped with a four-speed transmission. After model
year 1999, the production share of four-speed transmissions slowly decreased as five and
six speed transmissions were introduced into the market. Six-speed transmissions peaked
in model year 2013 at 60% of new vehicle production, but then fell quickly, down to 9% by
model year 2022. Eight-speed transmissions became the most popular transmission in
model year 2019 and maintained that position for model years 2020 through 2022,
followed by CVTs and transmissions with nine or more speeds. In model year 2022, vehicles
with eight-speed transmissions accounted for about a third of all new vehicles, while
vehicles with CVTs or vehicles with transmissions of nine or more speeds each accounted
for more than 20% of new vehicle production. These trends are projected to continue in
model year 2023, with transmissions of nine or more speeds continuing to increase market
share.
70
-------
Figure 4.24. Transmission Production Share
OT
100%
A
M6-.
M5
-L9
75% -
M4
L5 L6 PeVTfH)
50% -
L4
25% -
L3
J 1 CVT(N-H) /
A7
\
<
A3
A6 ^ /
-SS
0%-
CD
V—
TO
JZ
CO
c
o
0 100%
D
T3
1 75% J
O
50%
25%
0%
MS
M4
M3
L3
L4
A3
CVT(H)
CVT(N-H)
Iss [
J*.
o
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Transmission
Lookup?
Number of Gears
Key
Single Speed
-
1
SS
Automatic
No
2
A2*
Semi-Automatic
3
A3
Automated Manual
4
A4
5
A5*
6
A6
7
A7
8
>
CO
Yes
2
L2*
3
L3
4
L4
5
L5
6
L6
7
L7
8
L8
9
10
L10
Manual
-
3
M3
4
M4
5
MS
0
M6
7
M7*
Continuously Variable
(Non-Hybrid)
~
CVT(N-H)
Continuously Variable
(Hybrid)
~
"
CVT(H)
Other
-
-
OT
Categories A2, A5, A8, L2, and M7 are too small to depict in the area plot.
71
-------
Transmission trends also vary by vehicle engine technology, as shown in Figure 4.25. For
model year 2022, diesel engines were most often paired with a ten-speed lockup
transmission, with some eight speed transmissions and a few 6 speed transmissions.
Gasoline engines were paired with a wide variety of transmissions, including CVTs, lockup
transmissions from ten to five speeds, a small number of manual transmissions, and a
small number of non-lockup transmissions (likely dual clutch transmissions). Hybrids and
PHEVs also used a wide array of transmission technologies, as there are many hybrid and
PHEV engine and transmission designs on the market. EVs are generally designed without a
traditional transmission and utilize a single speed design. However, a limited number of
high-performance EVs do have a 2-speed transmission.16
Figure 4.25. Transmission By Engine Technology, Model Year 2022
100%-
75%
to
GO
c
o
¦0
o
50% -
25% -
Transmission
¦
Single Speed
A2
¦
A6
A7
¦
A8
CVT (Hybrid)
CVT (Non-Hybrid)
L5
L6
L7
L8
L9
¦
L10
M5
M6
¦
M7
Diesel
Hybrid
Fuel Type
PHEV
16 In model year 2022, a small number of EVs were reported to EPA as having CVTs, These vehicles do not
appear to be significantly different from other EV designs. EPA is investigating the manufacturer's classification
of these vehicles.
72
-------
Another notable trend in Figure 4.24 is the decline in manual transmissions. Manual
transmissions were included in almost 35% of new vehicles in model year 1980, but have
been gradually declining since, and fell below 1 % of all production in model year 2022.
Today, manual transmissions are available only in a limited number of small vehicles,
sports cars, off-road truck SUVs, and a few small pickups.
Part of the reason for the decline in manual transmission is because modern automatic
transmissions now have more gears, are generally more efficient, and can offer better
performance than manual transmissions. Figure 4.26 shows the average number of gears
in new vehicle transmissions since model year 1980 for automatic and manual
transmissions. While both manual and automatic transmissions have added gears over
time, automatic transmission have added additional gears faster, and passed manual
transmissions in model year 2012. In model year 2022, the average number of gears for all
manual transmissions was 6 while the average for automatic transmissions was 7.8 gears.
The overall number of gears fell slightly in model year 2022 and is projected to fall further
in model year 2023, due to the inclusion of electric vehicle single speed transmissions.
Figure 4.26. Average Number of Transmission Gears
co
CB
O
X!
E
=5
a)
O)
ro
u
a>
>
<
8-
7-
5-
4-
3-
Automatic
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
73
-------
In the past, automatic transmissions have generally been less efficient than manual
transmissions, largely due to inefficiencies in the automatic transmission torque converter.
Figure 4.27 examines this trend over time by comparing the fuel economy of automatic and
manual transmission options where both transmissions were available in one model with
the same engine. Vehicles with a manual transmission were more efficient than their
automatic counterparts through about 2010, but modern automatic transmissions are now
more efficient. Two contributing factors to this trend are that automatic transmission
design has become more efficient (using earlier lockup and other strategies), and the
number of gears used in automatic transmissions has increased faster than in manual
transmissions. The continued shrinking availability of manual transmissions in each model
year limits the relevance of analyses comparing current manual transmissions to automatic
transmissions.
Figure 4.27. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World
Fuel Economy for Comparable Vehicles
i i
2000 2010
Model Year
i
2020
2030
Manual transmissions
are more efficient
co
3
C
TO
E
o
c
o
o
LU
0)
D
LL
Automatic transmissions
are more efficient
1.05 -
1.00
0.90 -
i
1980
74
-------
Drive Types
There has been a long and steady trend in new vehicle drive type away from rear-wheel
drive vehicles towards front-wheel drive and four-wheel drive (including all-wheel drive)
vehicles, as shown in Figure 4,28. In model year 1975, over 91 % of new vehicles were
produced with rear-wheel drive. Since then, production of rear-wheel drive vehicles has
steadily declined to about 10% in model year 2022. Most vehicles available today with rear
wheel drive are performance-oriented sedan/wagons and pickup trucks, but there are
limited rear wheel drive vehicles available in all vehicle types.
Production of front-wheel drive vehicles increased from 5% of new vehicle production in
model year 1975 to 64% in model year 1990 and 63% in model year 2009. Since 2009
however, the production of front-wheel vehicles has also been declining and is down to
31% in model year 2022. Four-wheel drive systems have steadily increased from 3.3% of
new vehicle production in model year 1975 to 60% of production in model year 2022. Four-
wheel drive systems have increased for both cars and trucks, but the high penetration rate
of 81.0% within trucks (including pickups, truck SUVs, and minivan/vans) and the market
shifts towards these vehicles has accelerated the trend towards four-wheel drive vehicles.
Figure 4.28. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share
100%
75%
CD
C
TO
.C
GO
J 50%
o
=5
T3
o
Q.
25%
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
75
-------
D. T echnology Adoption
One additional way to evaluate the evolution of technology in the automotive industry is to
focus on how technology has been adopted over time. Understanding how the industry has
adopted technology can lead to a better understanding of past changes in the industry,
and how emerging technology may be integrated in the future. The following analysis
provides more details about how manufacturers and the overall industry have adopted
new technology.
Industry-Wide Technology Adoption Since 1975
Figure 4.29 shows industry-wide adoption rates for seven technologies in passenger cars.
These technologies are fuel injection (including throttle body, port, and direct injection),
front-wheel drive, multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder),
engines with variable valve timing, lockup transmissions, advanced transmissions
(transmissions with six or more speeds, and CVTs), and gasoline direct injection engines. To
provide a common scale, the adoption rates are plotted in terms of the number of years
after the technology achieved first significant use in the industry. First significant use
generally represents a production threshold of 1 %, though in some cases, where full data
are not available, first significant use represents a slightly higher production share.
The technology adoption pattern shown in Figure 4.29 is roughly similar for each of the
seven technologies, even though they vary widely in application, complexity, and when they
were initially introduced. It has taken, on average, approximately 15-20 years for new
technologies to reach maximum penetration across the industry. GDI is a newer technology
that has likely not reached maximum penetration across the industry but appears to be
following the adoption trend of other more mature technologies. While some of these
technologies may eventually be adopted in 100% of new vehicles, there may be reasons
that other technologies, like front-wheel drive, will likely never be adopted in all vehicles.
Adoption rates for these technologies in trucks are similar, with the exception of front-
wheel drive.
The analysis for Figure 4.29 focuses on technologies that have achieved widespread use by
multiple manufacturers and does not look at narrowly adopted technologies which never
achieved widespread use. One limitation to the data in this report is that EPA does not
begin tracking technology production share data until after the technologies had achieved
some limited market share. For example, EPA did not begin to track multi-valve engine data
until model year 1986 for cars and model year 1994 for trucks, and in both cases multi-
valve engines had captured about 5% market share by that time. Likewise, turbochargers
76
-------
were not tracked in this report until model year 1996 for cars and model year 2003 for
trucks, and while turbochargers had less than a 1 % market share in both cases at that time,
it is likely that turbochargers had exceeded 1 % market share in the late 1980s. Cylinder
deactivation was utilized by at least one major manufacturer in the 1980s.
Figure 4.29. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant
Use
100%-
80% -
60% -
40% -
20% -
Fuel Injection
0% -
0 10 20 30 40 50
Years after First Significant Use
Advanced
Transmission
Drive
Variable-Valve
Timing
Technology Adoption by Manufacturers
The rate at which the overall industry adopts technology is determined by how quickly, and
at what point in time, individual manufacturers adopt the technology. While it is important
to understand the industry-wide adoption rates over time, the trends in Figure 4.29 mask
the fact that not all manufacturers introduced these technologies at the same time, or at
the same rate. The "sequencing" of manufacturers introducing new technologies is an
important aspect of understanding the overall industry trend of technology adoption.
Figure 4.30 begins to disaggregate the industry-wide trends to examine how individual
manufacturers have adopted new technologies.17 For each technology, Figure 4.30 shows
17 This figure is based on available data. Some technologies may have been introduced into the market before
this report began tracking them. Generally, these omissions are limited, with the exception of multi-valve
engine data for Honda. Honda had already achieved 70% penetration of multi-valve engines when this report
began tracking them in 1986, so this figure does not illustrate Honda's prior trends.
77
-------
the amount of time it took specific manufacturers to move from initial introduction to 80%
penetration for each technology, as well as the same data for the overall industry. After
80% penetration, the technology is assumed to be largely incorporated into the
manufacturer's fleet, and changes between 80% and 100% are not highlighted.
Of the seven technologies shown in Figure 4.30, five are now at or near full market
penetration for the included manufacturers, and two are still in the process of adoption by
manufacturers. The technologies shown in Figure 4.30 vary widely in terms of complexity,
application, and when they were introduced into the market. For each technology, there
are clearly variations between manufacturers, both in terms of when they began to adopt a
technology, and the rate with which they adopted the technology. The degree of variation
between the manufacturers also varies by technology.
The data for WT, for example, show that several manufacturers adopted the technology
much faster than the overall industry, which achieved 80% penetration in just over 20
years. It was not the rate of technology adoption alone, but rather the staggered
implementation timeframes among manufacturers that resulted in the longer industry-
wide average.
Fuel injection systems show the least amount of variation in initial adoption timing
between manufacturers, which resulted in a faster adoption by the industry overall than
technologies like WT. One important driver for adoption of fuel injection was increasingly
stringent emissions standards. Advanced transmissions, which have been available in small
numbers for some time, have very rapidly increased market penetration in recent years
and are now widely adopted. GDI engines appear to be following a similar path of quick
uptake in recent years. Turbocharged engines have long been available, but the focus on
turbo downsized engine packages is leading to much higher market penetration, although
it is too early to tell what level of penetration they will ultimately achieve industry-wide.
There are many factors outside the scope of this report that influence the rate and timing
of when technology is adopted by individual manufacturers (e.g., price, manufacturing
constraints, regulatory drivers, etc.) While no attempt is made here to identify the
underlying causes, it is important to recognize that variation between manufacturers for
given technologies can be masked when only the industry-wide trends are evaluated.
Technology adoption by individual manufacturers is often more rapid than the overall
industry trend would suggest.
78
-------
Figure 4.30. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key
Technologies
0)
D
O
ro
D
C
03
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
Toyota
GM
Ford
Stellantis
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
All Manufacturers
¦j !¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦¦
2000
2020 2025
2010
Fuel Injection
J I
¦ ¦ hihh ¦¦¦¦¦¦ I
J
urn
2020 2025
I -
I I III
2020 2025
Lockup
Multi-Valve
IllllllHIHIIHll
¦I
im
¦ ¦¦
¦¦
¦
Variable Valve
Timing
2020 2025
, i r
i
twmm
. in '
~1 f
Advanced
Transmissions
Gasoline Direct
Injection
2020 2025
1975 1980
1990
2000
Model Year
2010
Turbocharged
2020 2025
Percent of Production
20% to 25%
10% lo 15%
0% to 5%
I
25% to 50%
75% to E
I
| 15% to 20%
5% to 10%
50% lo 75%
80% to 100%
79
-------
Table 4.1. Production Share by Powertrain
Model Year
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Diesel
EV
PHEV
FCV
Other
1975
99.8%
-
0.2%
-
-
-
-
1980
95.7%
-
4.3%
-
-
-
-
1985
99.1%
-
0.9%
-
-
-
-
1990
99.9%
-
0.1%
-
-
-
-
1995
100.0%
-
0.0%
-
-
-
-
2000
99.8%
0.0%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
2005
98.6%
1.1%
0.3%
-
-
-
-
2006
98.1%
1.5%
0.4%
-
-
-
-
2007
97.7%
2.2%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
2008
97.4%
2.5%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
2009
97.2%
2.3%
0.5%
-
-
-
-
2010
95.5%
3.8%
0.7%
-
-
0.0%
-
2011
97.0%
2.2%
0.8%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2012
95.5%
3.1%
0.9%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2013
94.8%
3.6%
0.9%
0.3%
0.4%
-
0.0%
2014
95.7%
2.6%
1.0%
0.3%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2015
95.9%
2.4%
0.9%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2016
96.9%
1.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%
0.0%
2017
96.1%
2.3%
0.3%
0.6%
0.8%
0.0%
-
2018
95.1%
2.3%
0.4%
1.4%
0.8%
0.0%
-
2019
94.4%
3.8%
0.1%
1.2%
0.5%
0.0%
-
2020
92.4%
4.9%
0.5%
1.8%
0.5%
0.0%
-
2021
85.1%
9.3%
1.0%
3.2%
1.2%
0.0%
-
2022
82.3%
10.2%
0.8%
5.2%
1.5%
0.0%
2023 (prelim)
73.7%
13.6%
0.9%
9.8%
2.0%
0.0%
-
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
<4?
-------
Table 4.2. Production Share by Engine Technologies
Fuel Delivery Method
Avg. No.
Model Year
Carb
TBI Port
GDI
GDPI
Other
of
Cylinders
1975
95.7%
0.(
Wo 4.1%
-
-
0.2%
6.8
1980
89.7%
0.J
3% 5.2%
-
-
4.3%
5.6
1985
56.1%
24.S
3% 18.2%
-
-
0.9%
5.5
1990
2.1%
27.(
Wo 70.8%
-
-
0.1%
5.4
1995
-
8.<
Wo 91.6%
-
-
0.0%
5.6
2000
-
0.(
Wo 99.8%
-
-
0.1%
5.7
2005
-
- 99.7%
-
-
0.3%
5.8
2006
-
- 99.6%
-
-
0.4%
5.7
2007
-
- 99.8%
-
-
0.1%
5.6
2008
-
- 97.6%
2.3%
-
0.1%
5.6
2009
-
- 95.2%
4.2%
-
0.5%
5.2
2010
-
- 91.0%
8.3%
-
0.7%
5.3
2011
-
- 83.8%
15.4%
-
0.8%
5.4
2012
-
- 76.4%
22.5%
0.1%
1.0%
5.1
2013
-
- 67.7%
30.5%
0.6%
1.2%
5.1
2014
-
- 60.9%
37.4%
0.4%
1.3%
5.1
2015
-
- 56.0%
41.9%
0.7%
1.4%
5.0
2016
-
- 48.7%
48.0%
2.3%
1.0%
5.0
2017
-
- 44.2%
49.7%
5.2%
0.9%
5.0
2018
-
- 37.7%
50.2%
10.3%
1.8%
5.0
2019
-
- 31.6%
52.9%
14.2%
1.4%
5.1
2020
-
- 26.6%
57.1%
14.0%
2.2%
5.0
2021
-
- 23.6%
53.4%
18.7%
4.3%
5.0
2022
-
- 21.1%
52.3%
20.6%
6.0%
5.0
2023 (prelim)
-
- 14.1%
52.0%
23.2%
10.7%
4.9
Non-hybrid
Multi- Stop/
CID
HP
Valve
WT
CD
Turbo
Start
293
137
-
-
-
-
-
198
104
-
-
-
-
-
189
114
-
-
-
-
-
185
135
23.1%
-
-
-
-
196
158
35.6%
-
-
-
-
200
181
44.8%
15.0%
-
1.3%
-
205
209
65.6%
45.8%
0.8%
1.7%
-
204
213
71.7%
55.4%
3.6%
2.1%
-
203
217
71.7%
57.3%
7.3%
2.5%
-
199
219
76.4%
58.2%
6.7%
3.0%
-
183
208
83.8%
71.5%
7.3%
3.3%
-
188
214
85.5%
83.8%
6.4%
3.3%
-
192
230
86.4%
93.1%
9.5%
6.8%
-
181
222
91.8%
96.6%
8.1%
8.4%
0.6%
176
226
92.8%
97.4%
7.7%
13.9%
2.3%
180
230
89.2%
97.6%
10.6%
14.8%
5.1%
177
229
91.2%
97.2%
10.5%
15.7%
7.1%
174
230
92.3%
98.0%
10.4%
19.9%
9.6%
174
234
92.0%
98.1%
11.9%
23.4%
17.8%
172
241
91.0%
96.4%
12.5%
30.0%
29.8%
174
245
90.1%
97.2%
14.9%
30.0%
36.9%
170
246
90.7%
95.8%
14.7%
34.7%
45.8%
176
253
88.0%
94.4%
16.6%
32.9%
45.0%
171
259
87.5%
92.5%
15.9%
36.6%
49.6%
170
272
83.9%
87.8%
15.4%
40.2%
51.2%
81
-------
Table 4.3. Production Share by Transmission Technologies
Automa
Automa tic CVT 4 Gears Average
tic with without CVT (Non- or 5 6 7 8 9+ No. of
Model Year
Manual
Lockup
Lockup
(Hybrid)
Hybrid)
Other
Fewer
Gears
Gears
Gears
Gears
Gears
Gears
1975
23.0%
0.2%
76.8%
-
-
99.0%
1.0%
-
-
-
-
-
1980
34.6%
18.1%
46.8%
-
-
0.5%
87.9%
12.1%
-
-
-
-
3.5
1985
26.5%
54.5%
19.1%
-
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
-
-
-
-
3.8
1990
22.2%
71.2%
6.5%
-
0.0%
0.0%
79.9%
20.0%
0.1%
-
-
-
4.0
1995
17.9%
80.7%
1.4%
-
-
-
82.0%
17.7%
0.2%
-
-
-
4.1
2000
9.7%
89.5%
0.7%
-
0.0%
-
83.7%
15.8%
0.5%
-
-
-
4.1
2005
6.2%
91.5%
0.1%
1.0%
1.3%
-
56.0%
37.3%
4.1%
0.2%
-
-
4.5
2006
6.5%
90.6%
0.0%
1.5%
1.4%
-
47.7%
39.2%
8.8%
1.4%
-
-
4.6
2007
5.6%
87.1%
0.0%
2.1%
5.1%
-
40.5%
36.1%
14.4%
1.5%
0.2%
-
4.8
2008
5.2%
86.8%
0.2%
2.4%
5.5%
-
38.8%
31.9%
19.4%
1.8%
0.2%
-
4.8
2009
4.8%
85.6%
0.2%
2.1%
7.3%
-
31.2%
32.2%
24.5%
2.5%
0.1%
-
5.0
2010
3.8%
84.1%
1.2%
3.8%
7.2%
-
24.6%
23.5%
38.1%
2.7%
0.2%
-
5.2
2011
3.2%
86.5%
0.3%
2.0%
8.0%
-
14.2%
18.7%
52.3%
3.1%
1.7%
-
5.5
2012
3.6%
83.4%
1.1%
2.9%
8.9%
-
8.1%
18.2%
56.3%
2.8%
2.6%
-
5.5
2013
3.5%
80.4%
1.4%
3.3%
11.4%
-
5.4%
12.8%
60.1%
2.8%
4.1%
-
5.6
2014
2.8%
76.7%
1.6%
2.7%
16.3%
-
2.2%
7.8%
58.4%
3.3%
8.4%
1.1%
5.9
2015
2.6%
72.3%
1.4%
2.4%
21.3%
-
1.5%
4.5%
54.2%
3.1%
9.5%
3.5%
5.9
2016
2.2%
72.3%
2.6%
1.8%
21.0%
-
1.1%
3.0%
54.9%
2.9%
11.2%
4.1%
6.0
2017
2.1%
71.5%
2.6%
2.5%
21.2%
-
1.0%
2.4%
49.0%
3.4%
14.6%
5.9%
6.1
2018
1.6%
72.8%
3.2%
2.2%
20.1%
-
1.9%
2.0%
37.6%
3.7%
19.0%
13.5%
6.4
2019
1.4%
72.1%
2.4%
2.4%
21.7%
-
1.5%
1.6%
26.1%
2.6%
27.5%
16.5%
6.6
2020
1.1%
68.3%
2.7%
3.3%
24.5%
-
1.8%
0.8%
17.3%
2.1%
28.8%
21.2%
6.9
2021
0.9%
67.0%
5.4%
5.4%
21.2%
-
3.2%
1.1%
12.2%
2.0%
32.5%
22.4%
6.6
2022
0.9%
65.2%
8.1%
5.7%
20.1%
-
5.0%
1.1%
8.7%
2.1%
33.8%
23.5%
6.6
2023 (prelim)
1.0%
60.5%
13.7%
7.1%
17.7%
-
9.8%
0.7%
7.4%
2.4%
29.9%
25.0%
6.3
<4?
-------
Table 4.4. Production Share by Drive Technology
Model Year
Car
Truck
Front
Wheel
Drive
Rear
Wheel
Drive
Four
Wheel
Drive
Front
Wheel
Drive
Rear
Wheel
Drive
1975
6.5%
93.5%
-
-
82.8%
1980
29.7%
69.4%
0.9%
1.4%
73.6%
1985
61.1%
36.8%
2.1%
7.3%
61.4%
1990
84.0%
15.0%
1.0%
15.8%
52.4%
1995
80.1%
18.8%
1.1%
18.4%
39.3%
2000
80.4%
17.7%
2.0%
20.0%
33.8%
2005
79.2%
14.2%
6.6%
20.1%
27.7%
2006
75.9%
18.0%
6.0%
18.9%
28.0%
2007
81.0%
13.4%
5.6%
16.1%
28.4%
2008
78.8%
14.1%
7.1%
18.4%
24.8%
2009
83.5%
10.2%
6.3%
21.0%
20.5%
2010
82.5%
11.2%
6.3%
20.9%
18.0%
2011
80.1%
11.3%
8.6%
17.7%
17.3%
2012
83.8%
8.8%
7.5%
20.9%
14.8%
2013
83.0%
9.3%
7.7%
18.1%
14.5%
2014
81.3%
10.6%
8.2%
17.5%
14.2%
2015
80.4%
9.7%
9.9%
16.0%
12.6%
2016
79.8%
9.1%
11.0%
15.9%
12.2%
2017
79.7%
8.3%
12.0%
16.1%
11.1%
2018
76.5%
9.4%
14.1%
13.4%
10.9%
2019
75.5%
10.1%
14.4%
14.4%
10.2%
2020
76.5%
8.8%
14.7%
12.5%
10.0%
2021
70.7%
11.2%
18.0%
8.5%
9.2%
2022
65.9%
11.2%
22.9%
10.0%
8.9%
2023 (prelim)
59.6%
13.9%
26.5%
8.6%
8.0%
Four
Wheel
Drive
Front
Wheel
Drive
17.2%
5.3%
25.0%
25.0%
31.3%
47.8%
31.8%
63.8%
42.3%
57.6%
46.3%
55.5%
52.2%
53.0%
53.1%
51.9%
55.5%
54.3%
56.8%
54.2%
58.5%
62.9%
61.0%
59.6%
65.0%
53.8%
64.3%
61.4%
67.5%
59.7%
68.3%
55.3%
71.4%
52.9%
72.0%
51.2%
72.8%
49.6%
75.6%
43.7%
75.4%
41.6%
77.5%
40.6%
82.3%
31.6%
81.0%
30.6%
83.3%
26.3%
All
Rear
Wheel
Drive
Four
Wheel
Drive
91.4%
3.3%
70.1%
4.9%
42.9%
9.3%
26.1%
10.1%
26.3%
16.2%
24.3%
20.2%
20.2%
26.8%
22.3%
25.8%
19.6%
26.1%
18.5%
27.3%
13.6%
23.5%
13.7%
26.7%
13.8%
32.4%
10.9%
27.7%
11.1%
29.1%
12.1%
32.6%
10.9%
36.1%
10.5%
38.3%
9.6%
40.8%
10.2%
46.1%
10.1%
48.3%
9.4%
49.9%
10.0%
58.5%
9.8%
59.6%
10.1%
63.6%
83
-------
5. Manufacturer GHG Compliance
Manufacturers that produce passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles for sale in the United States are required to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and fuel economy standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the light-duty GHG program, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates fuel economy through the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The following analysis is designed to
provide as much information as possible about how manufacturers are performing under
EPA's GHG program, including final compliance data through model year 2022 and credit
trades reported to EPA as of October 31, 2023.
This report reflects the current light-duty GHG and fuel economy regulations as finalized by
EPA and NHTSA, including updated standards through model year 2026. Any applicable
regulatory changes finalized by EPA and NHTSA will be included in future versions of this
report.
EPA's GHG program defines standards for Figure 5.1. The GHG Compliance Process
each manufacturer's car and truck fleets
based on the average footprint of the
vehicles produced for sale. Each
manufacturer fleet generates credits if the
fleet average emissions performance is
below the standards or generates deficits if
performance is above the standards.
Credits, or deficits, that manufacturers have
accrued in previous model years, credits
earned as part of the early credit program,
credit trades, credit forfeitures, and credit
expirations are also important components
in determining the final compliance status of
each manufacturer. Manufacturers that
maintain a positive, or zero, credit balance
are considered in compliance with the GHG program. Manufacturers that end any model
year with a deficit have up to three years to offset all deficits to avoid non-compliance, and
may not report deficits for more than 3 years in a row. The general compliance process
that manufacturers follow at the end of each model year is shown in Figure 5.1.
1) Calculate
Model Year
Standards
2) Measure
Model Year
Performance
1
r i
r
3) Evaluate Credits and Deficits
for each Model Year
Standards vs Performance
Credit Transactions
Credit Expirations
4) Determine Overall Credit
Balance and Compliance
Status
<3?
-------
Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions have been an important part of many
mobile source programs under the Clean Air Act. These provisions help manufacturers in
planning and implementing a phase-in of emissions reduction technology in their
production that is consistent with their unique redesign schedules. As part of the GHG
program, ABT provisions allow manufacturers to average their car or truck fleet CO2
emissions (i.e., the standards do not apply to individual vehicles), to earn and "bank" credits
by reducing their car or truck fleet performance to below the applicable standards, and to
trade credits between manufacturers. The net effect of the ABT provisions is that they
allow additional flexibility, encourage earlier introduction of emission reduction
technologies than might otherwise occur, and do so without reducing the overall
effectiveness of the program.
Manufacturer standards and model
year performance are discussed in
this report as per vehicle emission
rates, measured in grams of C02 per
mile (g/mi). Any discussion of
manufacturer total credit balances,
credit transactions, and compliance
will be in terms of total mass of CO2
emissions, measured in Megagrams
of CO2 (Mg). The use of a mass-based
metric enables the banking and
trading portions of the GHG program
by accounting for vehicle lifetime
emissions for all vehicles produced.
Converting from an emission rate to
total emissions is straightforward, as
shown in the box on the right.
Unlike the previous sections of this report, the tailpipe CO2 emission data presented in this
section are compliance data, based on EPA's City and Highway test procedures (referred to
as the "2-cycle" tests). These values should not be compared to the estimated real-world
data throughout the rest of this report. For a detailed discussion of the difference between
real-world and compliance data, see Appendix C. To download the data presented in this
section please see the report website: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
How to Calculate Total Emissions
from an Emission Rate
Total emissions, or credits, are calculated by multiplying a
C02 emission rate, the production volume of applicable
vehicles, and the expected lifetime vehicle miles travelled
(VMT) of those vehicles. To calculate total emissions, or
credits, the following equation is used:
Credits = ( CO2 Emissions x VMT x Production ) /1,000,000
In the above equation, "Credits" are measured in
megagrams (Mg) of C02, "CO2 emissions" are measured in
grams per mile (g/mi), and "VMT" is in miles, and specified
in the regulations as 195,264 miles for cars and 225,865 for
trucks. To calculate g/mi from Mg:
CO2 Emissions = ( Credits x 1,000,000) / (VMT x Production )
When using these equations to calculate values for cars and
trucks in aggregate, use a production weighted average of
the car and truck VMT values. For the 2022 model year, the
industry wide weighted VMT is 214,568 miles.
85
-------
A. Footprint-Based CO2 Standards
At the end of each model year, manufacturers are required to calculate unique C02
standards for their car and truck fleets, based on the vehicles produced that model year.
The GHG program uses footprint, which is the area between the four tires, as a metric for
determining the specific standard for each manufacturer's car and truck fleets.
Manufacturers must calculate new standards each year as the regulations become more
stringent, and as their footprint distribution and production change. See Section 3 for a
discussion of footprint and vehicle production trends and Appendix F for the definitions of
"car" and "truck" under the regulations.
The regulations define footprint "curves" that provide a CO2 emissions target for every
vehicle footprint, as shown in Figure 5.2. For example, a car with a footprint of 47.2 square
feet in model year 2022 (the average car footprint) has a compliance CO2 target of 183
g/mi. This is a target and not a standard, as there are no footprint-based CO2 emissions
requirements for individual vehicles at the time of certification. The unique C02 standards
for each manufacturer's car and truck fleets are production-weighted averages of the CO2
target values, as determined from the curves, for all the unique footprint values of the
vehicles within that fleet. This is an element of the "averaging" approach of the ABT
provisions. Using one production-weighted average to define a single fleet standard allows
for some individual vehicles to be above that standard, while others are below.
Figure 5.2. 2012-2022 Model Year CO2 Footprint Target Curves
400
350
300
250
200
150
40 50 60 70 80
Footprint (sq ft)
2012 Truck
86
-------
The footprint curves for the 2012 and 2022 model years are shown in Figure 5.2. The GHG
targets have gradually decreased (become more stringent) from 2012 to the current 2022
levels, as defined in the regulations. Larger vehicles have higher targets, although the
increases are capped beyond a certain footprint size (i.e., the curves become flat). Trucks
have higher targets than cars of the same footprint in the same model year.
In addition to the footprint-based standards, EPA established several alternative standards
for small to intermediate manufacturers. These provisions provide additional lead-time for
manufacturers that may not be able to take full advantage of averaging or other program
flexibilities due to the limited scope of the vehicles they sell.
The Temporary Lead-time Allowance Alternative Standards (TLAAS) provisions were
available to manufacturers with production of less than 400,000 vehicles in model year
2009. This provision allowed manufacturers to place vehicles in an alternative car or truck
TLAAS fleet each model year, with those vehicles subject to a less stringent standard. The
standard for a TLAAS fleet was 1.25 times the standard that would have applied to that
fleet according to the footprint-based approach applied to all other car and truck fleets.
Each manufacturer could apply the TLAAS standards to a maximum of 100,000 vehicles,
cumulative over model years 2012-2015. Mercedes, Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo, Porsche,
Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lotus, and McLaren participated in the TLAAS program. The overall
industry-wide impact of the TLAAS program was less than 1 g/mi for all years it was
available.
The intermediate volume provisions allowed intermediate volume manufacturers (those
that produced less than 50,000 vehicles in the 2009 model year) to use an alternative
compliance schedule in model years 2017-2020. Under these provisions, manufacturers
were required to meet the model year 2016 standards in the model years 2017 and 2018,
delay meeting the 2019-2020 standards by one model year, and finally align with the
primary standards and other manufacturers in the 2021 model year. Jaguar Land Rover
and Volvo are the two manufacturers utilizing these alternative compliance schedules.
Small volume manufacturers, with U.S. production of less than 5,000 vehicles per year,
have additional options under the GHG program. This includes the ability to petition EPA
for alternative standards for model year 2017 and later, and allowing these manufacturers
to meet an established alternative model year 2017 standard in model years 2015 and
2016. Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus, and McLaren applied for unique alternative standards
for model years 2017-2021, and EPA established alternative standards for these
87
-------
manufacturers in a July 2020 determination.18 Manufacturers have submitted petitions for
alternative standards for model year 2022, which are currently under review. Because
standards have not been finalized for these manufacturers beyond model year 2021, the
model year 2021 standards are the most current finalized standards and have been
applied to model year 2022 in this report. The model year 2022 standards for small volume
manufacturers may change as future standards are finalized by EPA and any updates will
be reflected in future reports.
Each manufacturer's standards for model year 2022 are shown in Table 5.1. In model year
2022, average new car footprint increased 0.3 square feet while truck footprint fell 0.1
square feet. The more stringent model year 2022 footprint targets, along with changes to
footprint, resulted in a reduction of the car standard by 2 g/mi, from 185 g/mi to 183 g/mi,
and the truck standard by 5 g/mi, from 265 g/mi to 260 g/mi. While there is no combined
car and truck standard for regulatory purposes, this report will often calculate one to
provide an overall view of the industry and to allow comparison across manufacturers.
Overall, the effective combined car and truck standard decreased in model year 2022 by 4
g/mi, from 238 g/mi to 234 g/mi.
Since the beginning of the GHG program, two notable changes in manufacturer groupings
have occurred. Porsche was part of the program as an independent manufacturer for
model years 2012 and 2013, but Porsche has been included as part of Volkswagen for all
following model years. Beginning in model year 2020, Lotus and Volvo submitted data as
one manufacturer for compliance with the GHG program, since both companies are
majority owned by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd (Geely). EPA determinations
related to this merger are subject to change and will be updated in future reports as
necessary. Table 5.1 shows the manufacturers that produced vehicles in model year 2022
using current manufacturer groupings, while later tables in this report show all
manufacturers that were regulated independently in any model year, to allow for complete
credit accounting.
18 89 FR 39561, July 1, 2020.
88
-------
Table 5.1. Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2022
Footprint (ft2) Standards (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
Aston Martin
49.0
55.4
51.3
376
376
376
BMW
48.3
52.8
50.5
187
255
223
Ferrari
47.6
-
47.6
373
-
373
Ford
48.1
56.9
55.9
187
272
263
GM
46.1
59.3
56.0
180
282
259
Honda
46.3
50.4
48.3
180
244
213
Hyundai
46.9
50.3
48.3
182
244
210
Jaguar Land Rover
48.4
52.4
52.3
188
253
251
Kia
46.6
51.2
48.8
181
248
215
Lucid
53.2
-
53.2
206
-
206
Mazda
44.2
46.7
46.3
175
228
221
McLaren
47.1
-
47.1
329
-
329
Mercedes
50.6
53.4
52.2
195
258
234
Mitsubishi
43.8
45.8
44.7
172
224
198
Nissan
46.6
52.9
49.1
181
255
213
Rivian
-
63.2
63.2
-
301
301
Stellantis
51.5
57.5
56.7
200
275
266
Subaru
45.2
46.5
46.3
175
227
219
Tesla
50.7
51.7
50.8
197
250
201
Toyota
46.5
5.02
49.7
180
251
223
VW
46.2
50.1
48.6
179
243
221
Volvo
48.6
51.5
50.7
189
249
233
All Manufacturers
47.2
54.2
51.6
183
260
234
<3?
-------
B. Model Year Performance
After determining car and truck fleet standards for the model year, manufacturers must
determine the performance value for their car and truck fleets. This is the average
production-weighted CO2 tailpipe emissions of each fleet, including the impact of several
optional performance credits and adjustments. These credits and adjustments allow
manufacturers to benefit from technologies that reduce emissions but are not wholly
captured in standard regulatory tests, provide incentives for manufacturers to adopt
advanced technologies, and provide flexibility in other areas of the program. The available
performance credits and adjustments include:
• Performance credits for producing alternative fuel vehicles
• Performance credits for improving air conditioning systems
• Performance credits for deploying "off-cycle" technologies that reduce emissions
but are not captured on EPA's regulatory test cycles
• Adjustments for utilizing alternate methane and nitrous oxide standards
The impact of these credits and adjustments are integral to the annual model year analysis.
Any performance credits generated must be included in the model year fleet calculations
before a manufacturer can bank or trade credits. In addition, the performance value,
including the impact of the performance credits and adjustments, is the most accurate way
to compare how manufacturers' car and truck fleets are performing in comparison to the
standards within a model year. The standards discussed previously were designed
assuming manufacturers would use these optional provisions; therefore, any comparison
that excludes them is incomplete. Manufacturer tailpipe emissions, and each of the
performance credits and adjustments, are examined in detail below.
Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
The starting point for determining compliance for each manufacturer is its "2-cycle" tailpipe
GHG emissions value. All manufacturers are required to test their vehicles on the Federal
Test Procedure (known as the "City" test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (the
"Highway" test). Results from these two tests are combined by weighting the City test by
55% and the Highway test by 45%, to achieve a single combined CO2 value for each vehicle
model. Manufacturers then calculate a sales-weighted average of all the combined
city/highway values for each car and truck fleet. This represents the measured tailpipe CO2
emissions of a fleet without the application of any additional performance credits. As
discussed previously in this report, 2-cycle tailpipe CO2 emissions should only be used in
90
-------
the context of the compliance regulations and are not the same as and should not be
compared to the estimated real-world values reported in Sections 1-4.
As part of the GHG program, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles are included in the 2-
cycle tailpipe calculations with zero g/mi of tailpipe emissions. Plug-in hybrid vehicles
(PHEVs) are allowed to use a zero g/mi value for the portion of operation attributed to the
use of grid electricity (i.e., only emissions from the portion of operation attributed to the
gasoline engine are counted). Use of the zero g/mi option was limited to the first 200,000
qualified vehicles produced by a manufacturer in the 2012-2016 model years. No
manufacturer reached this limit. In the 2017-2026 model years, manufacturers may
continue to use zero g/mi for these vehicles, without any limits.
Figure 5.3 shows the 2-cycle tailpipe emissions reported by each manufacturer for the 2012
and 2022 model years, for all vehicles and for car and truck fleets. Companies that produce
solely electric vehicles (Tesla) are shown separately in the figure because they produce zero
tailpipe emissions on the 2-cycle tests. Figure 5.3 includes all manufacturers that reported
production in 2012 and 2022; there are additional manufacturers that produced vehicles in
that timespan that are not shown. The tailpipe values in Figure 5.3 should not be directly
compared to the manufacturer's standards presented in Table 5.1 ,as the standards were
created taking into consideration the optional performance credits available to
manufacturers to reduce their performance values.
Every manufacturer that has been in the U.S. market since the GHG program was
implemented in 2012 has reduced fleetwide overall tailpipe GHG emissions, except for
those manufacturers that only produce electric vehicles. Compared to the first year of the
program, Jaguar Land Rover leads manufacturers in the overall reduction of 2-cycle CO2
emissions (99 g/mi), while Volvo has the highest percentage reduction at 30%. Ten
manufacturers have reduced tailpipe CO2 emissions by 10% or more. Overall, tailpipe CO2
emissions of the entire fleet have been reduced by 38 g/mi, or about 13%, since the 2012
model year. Compliance is assessed on a fleet-specific basis, and most manufacturers have
reduced emissions within their car and truck fleets, some considerably, leading to
reductions of 61 and 72 g/mi in the car and truck fleets, respectively, since model year
2012. The overall reduction in tailpipe C02 emissions is smaller than the reduction in either
the car or truck fleets because of the shifting fleet mix towards trucks.
91
-------
Figure 5.3. Changes in 2-Cycle Tailpipe CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer
All Car
Tesla
Volvo
Mitsubishi
Hyundai
Honda
Kia
Subaru
Toyota
Nissan
Mazda
VW-
BMW
Mercedes
Ford
GM
Jaguar Land Rover
Stellantis -
Ferrari -
All-
Manufacturers
218+
235+j
236-»24il
237+26 6
243-* 26 6
24fr«r-2
247* t2
261K
26
2$3
2
263
26
311
7
82
3
250-" I—295
255-263
81
302
<-343
94j<315
314+331
326+
¦426
329 "*357
399+-
302
-494
L
0 100 200 300 400
-i—
500 0 100 200 300 400 500
2-Cycle Tailpipe C02 Emissions (g/mi)
134+-
22
21©
20
197
20;
222
197
+2
-*221
258
248
20
20'
2i5-*^41
229
247-
257
+
-297
¦262
43
37
258
257
-274
-277
<—316
261
-283
305+ 376
3|00»-325
399+-
259
-494
O0
~r~
0
Truck
248+-
c2B
3
312
32d
¦296
249+-:
268+H
27
286^-324
246
276^-
3oi
260^
278
285^
31
30'
297
-343
54
382
-324
-3
;4tH
327+
3: >9
30
-$63
-393
-385
-397
439
•384
369
100
1 I 1
200 300 400 500
92
-------
Performance Credits for Producing Alternative Fuel Vehicles
EPA's GHG program provides performance credits for dedicated and dual fuel alternative
fuel vehicles. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles run exclusively on an alternative fuel while
dual fuel vehicles can run both on an alternative fuel and on conventional gasoline. This
section describes two pathways for manufacturers to benefit from the production of
alternative fuel vehicles. The first pathway is through a set of defined production
multipliers available for certain alternative fuel vehicles. The second pathway is based on
incentives for gasoline-ethanol flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), which can run on E85 (85%
ethanol and 15% gasoline), or on conventional gasoline.
Performance Credits for Advanced Technology Vehicles
The GHG program created an incentive for advanced technology vehicles through the
introduction of vehicle "multipliers" for electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs), fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
Multipliers allow manufacturers to increase the volume of credits created by each vehicle
during the compliance process. For example, the 1.5 multiplier for 2021 model year EVs
allowed a manufacturer to increase the credits created by each electric or fuel cell vehicle
by an additional 50%. The impact of the multipliers is calculated separately from the main
car or truck fleet of each manufacturer and is included in this report as an advanced
technology credit. The multipliers established by rulemaking are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Production Multipliers by Model Year
Dedicated and Dual-
Model
Electric Vehicles
Plug-In Hybrid Electric
Fuel Natural Gas
Year
and Fuel Cell Vehicles
Vehicles
Vehicles
2017
2.0
1.6
1.6
2018
2.0
1.6
1.6
2019
2.0
1.6
1.6
2020
1.75
1.45
1.45
2021
1.5
1.3
1.3
2022
None
None
2.0
2023-2024
1.5
1.3
None
2025+
None
None
None
For model year 2022, production multipliers were not available for EVs and PHEVs. The only
multipliers available were for dedicated and dual-fuel natural gas vehicles, of which none
were produced in model year 2022. EVs and PHEVs will be eligible for production
93
-------
multipliers in model years 2023 and 2024, subject to a cumulative credit cap of 10 g/mi.
Figure 5.4 shows the model year 2022 production volume of vehicles that could qualifying
for model year 2023 and 2024 multiplier incentives. More than 1.3 million EVs, PHEVs, and
FCVs were produced in the 2022 model year. Of those vehicles, about 78% were EVs, 22%
were PHEVs, and less than 1 % were FCVs. Figure 4.15 in the previous section shows the
overall growth in EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs.
Figure 5.4. Model Year 2022 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
Electric Vehicle
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Vehicle
li i I
.V
¦ i • ¦ i
'¦ & ->6 ^ J3 <
EPA finalized a technical amendment on March 31, 2020 that corrects the regulations
pertaining to how manufacturers calculate credits for the GHG program's advanced
technology incentives. Manufacturers that produced vehicles eligible for these incentives
have resubmitted 2-cycle data to EPA, and this report uses these updated data and
calculations.
94
-------
Gasoline-Ethanol Flexible Fuel Vehicles
For the 2012 to 2015 model years, FFVs could earn performance credits corresponding to
the fuel economy credits under CAFE. For both programs, it was assumed that FFVs
operated half of the time on each fuel. The GHG credits were based on the arithmetic
average of alternative fuel and conventional fuel CO2 emissions. Further, to fully align the
GHG credit with the CAFE program, the CO2 emissions measurement on the alternative fuel
was multiplied by 0.15. The 0.15 factor was used because, under the CAFE program's
implementing statutes, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 0.15 gallons of
gasoline fuel, and the E85 fuel economy is divided by 0.15 before being averaged with the
gasoline fuel economy.
Starting in model year 2016, GHG compliance values for FFVs are based on the actual
emissions performance of the FFV on each fuel, weighted by EPA's assessment of the actual
use of these fuels in FFVs. In 2014, EPA issued a determination defining an "F factor" of 0.14
to use when weighting E85 and gasoline CO2 emissions for the 2016-2018 model years
FFVs; this reflects EPA's estimate that FFVs would be operating 14% of the time on E85. This
approach is comparable to the "utility factor" method used to weight gasoline and
electricity for PHEVs, which projects the percentage of miles that a PHEV will drive using
electricity based on how many miles a fully charged PHEV can drive using grid electricity.
EPA also adopted an F-factor of 0.14 for model years 2019 and 2020, and in a separate
action has extended the use of 0.14 to model years 2021 and later.19 This value will
continue to apply until EPA issues a new determination.
FFVs can still represent a CO2 emissions benefit and can help to lower the emissions of a
manufacturer's fleet, but the overall impact is significantly diminished. Because the FFV
values now incorporate the slightly lower C02 emissions when operating on E85 (typically
1 -3% lower than on gasoline), and a realistic rate of E85 fuel use, the benefit from FFVs is
no longer of the same magnitude that it was through the 2015 model year. Thus, we are no
longer illustrating a g/mi benefit to manufacturers specific to producing FFVs. The impact of
E85, a lower-GHG fuel than gasoline, is inseparable from, and built into, the 2-cycle
emissions described earlier.
19 "E85 Flexible Fuel Vehicle Weighting Factor for Model Years 2020 and Later Vehicles," EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, CD-20-12.
95
-------
Performance Credits for Improved Air Conditioning Systems
Almost all new cars and light trucks in the United States are equipped with air conditioning
(A/C) systems. There are two mechanisms by which A/C systems contribute to the
emissions of greenhouse gases: through leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants
(i.e., "direct" emissions) and through the combustion of fuel to provide mechanical power
to the A/C system (i.e., "indirect" emissions). The EPA 2-cycle compliance tests do not
measure either A/C refrigerant leakage or the increase in tailpipe emissions attributable to
the additional engine load of A/C systems. Thus, the GHG emission regulations include a
provision that allows manufacturers to earn optional credits for implementing technologies
that reduce either type of A/C-related emissions.
Air Conditioning Leakage Performance Credits
Refrigerants used in automotive air conditioning systems can have high global warming
potentials (GWP)20, such that leakage of a small amount of refrigerant can have a far
greater impact on global warming than emissions of a similar mass of CO2. The impacts of
refrigerant leakage can be reduced significantly by using systems with leak-tight
components, by using a refrigerant with a lower GWP, or by implementing both
approaches.
A manufacturer choosing to generate A/C leakage credits is required to calculate a leakage
"score" for the specific A/C system. This score is based on the number, performance, and
technology of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of the A/C system and is calculated
as refrigerant emissions in grams per year, using the procedures specified by the SAE
Surface Vehicle Standard J2727. The score is then converted to a g/mi credit value based on
the GWP of the refrigerant. In model year 2012, all leakage credits were based on
improvements to the A/C system components (e.g., O-rings, seals, valves, and fittings).
In model year 2013, GM and Honda introduced vehicles using a refrigerant with a
significantly reduced GWP. This new refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, has a GWP of 4, compared to
a GWP of 1430 for the predominant refrigerant at the time, HFC-134a, as illustrated in
Figure 5.5. In the nine model years since, low GWP refrigerant use has expanded to 97% of
new vehicles. All manufacturers reported some type of A/C leakage credits in the 2022
model year, resulting in an overall performance credit of 15.4 g/mi for the industry.
20 The global warming potential (GWP) represents how much a given mass of a chemical contributes to global
warming over a given time period compared to the same mass of C02. The GWP of C02 is 1.0.
96
-------
Figure 5.5. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer
100% J
75%-
-------
(and subsequently re-heating it to provide the desired air temperature). For vehicles
equipped with automatic climate-control systems, real-time adjustment of several aspects
of the overall system can result in improved efficiency.
The regulations provide manufacturers with a menu of A/C system technologies and
associated credit values (in g/mi of CO2), some of which are described above. These credits
are capped at 5.7 g/mi for all vehicles in the 2012-2016 model years, and at 5.0 and 7.2
g/mi for cars and trucks, respectively, in the 2017 and later model years. Twenty out of
twenty-two manufacturers reported A/C efficiency credits in 2022, resulting in an average
credit of 5.8 g/mi for the industry.
Air Conditioning Performance Credit Summary
A summary of the A/C leakage and efficiency performance credits reported by the industry
is shown in Figure 5.6. Leakage credits have been more prevalent than efficiency credits,
but both credit types are growing in use. Figure 5.7 shows the benefit of A/C credits, for
each manufacturer's fleet for the 2022 model year. All manufacturers used the A/C credit
provisions—leakage reductions, efficiency improvements, or both—as part of their
compliance demonstration in the 2022 model year. Ford had the highest reported credit on
a per vehicle g/mi basis, at 23.8 g/mi. Thus, A/C credits resulted in about an 8% reduction
from tailpipe emissions for Ford. All manufacturers reported at least 12 g/mi of credits, and
the overall industry reported an average of 21.1 g/mi of total A/C credits.
98
-------
Figure 5.6. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type
25-
20-
E
S 15-
V)
"o
'ssjysssss'-*
,v
J?
<3?
-------
Performance Credits for "Off-Cycle" Technology
In some cases, manufacturers employ technologies that result in CO2 emission reductions
that are not adequately captured on the 2-cycle test procedures. These benefits are
acknowledged in EPA's regulations by giving manufacturers three pathways by which to
accrue "off-cycle" performance credits. The first, and most widely used, pathway is a
predetermined list or "menu" of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies. The second
pathway is to use a broader array of emissions testing (5-cycle testing) to demonstrate the
CO2 emission reduction. The third pathway allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval to
use an alternative methodology to demonstrate C02 emission reductions.
Off-Cycle Performance Credits Based on the Menu
The first pathway to generating off-cycle credits is for a manufacturer to install
technologies from a predetermined list or "menu" of technologies preapproved by EPA. The
off-cycle credit menu provides specific credit values, or the calculation method for such
values, for each technology.21 Technologies from the menu may be used beginning in
model year 2014. This pathway allows manufacturers to use conservative credit values
established by EPA for a wide range of off-cycle technologies, with minimal data submittal
or testing requirements.
The regulations clearly define each technology and any requirements that apply for the
technology to generate credits. Figure 5.8 shows the adoption of menu technologies, by
manufacturer. The amount of credit awarded varies for each technology and between cars
and trucks. The impact of credits from this pathway on a manufacturer's fleet is capped at
10 g/mi through model year 2022, meaning that any single vehicle might accumulate more
than 10 g/mi, but the cumulative effect on a single manufacturer's fleet may not exceed a
credit of more than 10 g/mi. The manufacturer cap increases to 15 g/mi for model year
2023 through 2026 before reverting to 10 g/mi for subsequent model years. Off-cycle
technology credits based on the menu were widely used in model year 2022, with more
than 95% of off-cycle credits generated via the menu pathway. Each of these technologies
is discussed below.
21 See 40CFR 86.1869-12(b).
100
-------
Figure 5.8. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year
2022
Aston Martin -
BMW -
Ferrari -
Ford -
GM -
Honda -
Jaguar Land Rover -
Kia -
Lucid -
Mazda ¦ 62%
McLaren - 70%
Mercedes -
Mitsubishi -
Nissan -
Rivian -
Stellantis -
Subaru -
Tesla -
Toyota -
Volkswagen -
Volvo -
All Manufacturers
79%
87%
22%
31%
90%
88%
95%
100%
100%
100%
96%
24%
100%
100%
1%
72%
88%
62%
83%
95%
84%
16%
100%
100%
27%
65%
23%
76%
98%
88%
38%
9%
100%
100%
9%
94%
65%
87%
80%
100%
11%
100%
29%
92%
100%
22%
61%
72%
70%
84%
76%
98%
65%
100%
100%
88%
99%
100%
7%
100%
26%
100%
100%
23%
32%
67%
54%
91%
63%
100%
21% 100% 100%
18%
24%
96%
100%
42%
42%
82%
94%
34%
56%
87%
7%
90%
61%
8%
72%
93%
17%
42%
56%
100%
100%
lovo
74%
85%
28%
98%
98%
0%
94%
55%
49%
8%
93%
94%
100%
100%
100%
25%
10%
53%
100%
13%
41%
54%
38%
1%
22%
90%
21%
3%
93%
42%
30%
98%
100%
29%
88%
54%
30%
18%
87%
88%
12%
59%
54%
100%
30%
2%
18%
73%
100%
94%
12%
75%
94%
100%
68%
36%
84%
73%
100%
84%
100%
48%
73%
95%
86%
89%
96%
51%
33%
100%
60%
70%
88%
0%
0%
j#? r.^
nF
i
n!&"
T-
W6
°
¦V
<3S^ ¦ rX\vv" oefv
* +* #>*
45J3fl
<3?
-------
Active Aerodynamics
Active aerodynamics refers to technologies which are automatically activated to improve
the aerodynamics of a vehicle under certain conditions. These include grill shutters and
spoilers, which allow air to flow over and around the vehicle more efficiently, and
suspension systems that improve air flow at higher speeds by reducing the height of the
vehicle. Credits are variable and based on the measured improvement in the coefficient of
drag, a test metric that reflects the efficiency of airflow around a vehicle. Most
manufacturers implemented at least some level of active aerodynamics on their model
year 2022 vehicles. Tesla reported the highest implementation, at 100% of all new vehicles.
Overall, 48% of new vehicles qualified for these credits, reducing overall fleet C02
emissions by 0.6 g/mi.
Thermal Control Technologies
Thermal control systems help to maintain a comfortable air temperature of the vehicle
interior, without the use of the A/C system. These technologies lower the load on the A/C
system and thus the amount of fuel required to run the A/C system, subsequently lowering
GHG tailpipe emissions. The thermal control technologies included in the off-cycle menu
are:
• Active and passive cabin ventilation - Active systems use mechanical means to
vent the interior, while passive systems rely on ventilation through convective air
flow. Credits available for this technology range from 1.7 to 2.8 g/mi.
• Active seat ventilation - These systems move air through the seating surface,
transferring heat away from the vehicle occupants. Credits are 1.0 g/mi for cars
and 1.3 g/mi for trucks.
• Glass or glazing - Credits are available for glass or glazing technologies that
reduce the total solar transmittance through the glass, thus reducing the heat
from the sun that reaches the occupants. The credits are calculated based on
the measured solar transmittance through the glass and on the total area of
glass on the vehicle.
• Solar reflective surface coating - Credits are available for solar reflective surface
coating (e.g., paint) that reflects at least 65% of the infrared solar energy. Credits
are 0.4 g/mi for cars and 0.5 g/mi for trucks.
Active cabin ventilation was installed on 30% of all new vehicles in model year 2022, with
Hyundai, Kia, and Tesla utilizing this technology on all of their vehicles. BMW, Stellantis, VW,
102
-------
and Mercedes also utilized active cabin ventilation. Passive cabin ventilation technologies
were used much more widely, with nine manufacturers reporting passive cabin ventilation
on all model year 2021 production, and an 88% adoption rate overall.
Active seat ventilation was used by many manufacturers and the rate of implementation
remained about the same at 18% in model year 2022. Rivian utilized active seat ventilation
in all of their model year 2022 vehicles, followed by Jaguar Land Rover at 65%. Glass or
glazing technology continues to be used throughout the industry, with 87% of the model
year 2022 vehicles equipped with these technologies. Solar reflective coatings have been
used less widely, with a penetration of 12% across new vehicles in model year 2021, and no
manufacturer above 34%.
Due to the likelihood of synergistic effects among the various thermal technologies, the
total credit allowed from this technology group is capped at 3.0 g/mi for cars and 4.3 g/mi
for trucks. Overall, manufacturers widely adopted thermal control technologies, which
reduced model year 2022 overall new vehicle fleet C02 emissions by 3.3 g/mi.
Active Engine and Transmission Warmup
Active engine and transmission warmup systems use heat from the vehicle that would
typically be wasted (exhaust heat, for example) to warm up key elements of the engine,
allowing a faster transition to more efficient operation. An engine or transmission at its
optimal operating temperature minimizes internal friction, and thus operates more
efficiently and reduces tailpipe C02 emissions. Systems that use a single heat-exchanging
loop that serves both transmission and engine warmup functions are eligible for either
engine or transmission warmup credits, but not both. Active engine and transmission
warmup technologies are each worth credit up to 1.5 g/mi for cars and 3.2 g/mi for trucks.
Most manufacturers adopted warmup technologies for their engines, transmissions, or
both. Active engine warmup was installed in 59% of all new vehicles, and active
transmission warmup in 54% of the fleet, resulting in a CO2 reduction of about 2.9 g/mi
across the 2022 model year fleet. Honda, Stellantis, VW, and BMW led the industry in active
engine warmup, with more than 90% of their new vehicles employing the technology.
Ferrari, McLaren, Mazda, Subaru, and Mitsubishi led the industry in active transmission
warmup technologies, with more than 90% of their new vehicles utilizing these
technologies.
103
-------
Engine Idle Stop/Start
Engine idle stop/start systems allow the engine to turn off when the vehicle is at a stop,
automatically restarting the engine when the driver releases the brake and/or applies
pressure to the accelerator. If equipped with a switch to disable the system, EPA must
determine that the predominant operating mode of the system is the "on" setting
(defaulting to "on" every time the key is turned on is one basis for such a determination).
Thus, some vehicles with these systems are not eligible for credits. Credits range from 1.5
to 4.4 g/mi and depend on whether the system is equipped with an additional technology
that, at low ambient temperatures, allows heat to continue to be circulated to the vehicle
occupants when the engine is off during a stop-start event.
The implementation of stop/start has been increasing rapidly, as discussed in Section 4,
which aggregates and reports on these systems regardless of the regulatory eligibility for
credits. In model year 2022, 60% of new vehicles qualified for and claimed this credit,
resulting in a fleetwide CO2 reduction of about 2.2 g/mi. Twelve manufacturers installed
stop start systems on at least half of their model year 2022 vehicles.
High Efficiency Exterior Lights
High efficiency lights (e.g., LEDs) reduce the total electric demand, and thus the fuel
consumption and related GHG emissions, of a lighting system in comparison to
conventional incandescent lighting. Credits are based on the specific lighting locations,
ranging from 0.06 g/mi for turn signals and parking lights to 0.38 g/mi for low beams. The
total of all lighting credits summed from all lighting locations may not exceed 1.0 g/mi.
Unlike some other off-cycle technologies, safety regulations require that all vehicles must
be equipped with lights, and the popularity of high efficiency lights across manufacturers
may reflect that lighting improvements are relatively straightforward to implement. Most
manufacturers reported wide-spread usage of high efficiency lighting in model year 2022
new vehicles, except Mazda, Mitsubishi, and Aston Martin. Overall, in model year 2022, 88%
of new vehicles implemented high efficiency lighting in some form, reducing fleetwide CO2
emissions by 0.5 g/mi.
High Efficiency Alternators
Alternators convert mechanical energy from an engine into electrical energy, which is used
to power the vehicle's electrical system and accessories. High efficiency alternators reduce
the amount of mechanical energy needed to drive the alternator and provide the necessary
electrical requirements of the vehicle. High efficiency alternators were added as an off-
cycle menu option beginning in model year 2020. Twelve manufacturers claimed menu
104
-------
credits for high-efficiency alternators on 70% of all new vehicles, reducing fleetwide CO2
emissions by 0.7 g/mi. Stellantis also claimed credits for high-efficiency alternators in
model year 2021 through the alternative methodology described below.
Solar Panels
Vehicles that use electric motors for propulsion, such as battery electric, plug-in hybrid
electric, and hybrid electric vehicles may receive credits for solar panels that are used to
charge the battery directly or to provide power directly to essential vehicle systems (e.g.,
heating and cooling systems). Credits are based on the rated power of the solar panels.
Hyundai claimed this credit in model year 2021 for a small number of vehicles.
Summary of Off-Cycle Menu-Based Performance Credits
As shown in Table 5.3, manufacturers are using a mix of off-cycle menu technologies,
though each uses and benefits from the individual technologies to differing degrees. In
model year 2022, the industry achieved 9.0 g/mi of credits from the menu, based on a
production weighted average of credits across all manufacturers. BMW, Ford, GM, Honda,
Jaguar Land Rover, Stellantis, and VW all reached the 10 g/mi cap in 2022. For those
manufacturers, the sum of the credits from individual technologies in Table 5.3 will exceed
the total allowable credits, and only the 10 g/mi value will be used in subsequent
calculations. The overall industry-wide value of 9.0 g/mi reflects the capped credits.
Off-Cycle Performance Credits Based on 5-Cycle Testing
In cases where additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second
pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as "5-cycle"
testing because the methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate
and justify off-cycle CO2 credits.22 The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to
be demonstrated over elements of real-world driving not captured by the GHG compliance
tests, including high speeds, rapid accelerations, and cold temperatures. Credits
determined according to this methodology do not undergo additional public review.
22 See 40CFR 86.1869-12(c).
105
-------
Table 5.3. Model Year 2022 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and Technology
(g/mi)
Manufacturer
Active
Aero-
dynamics
Thermal
Controls
Active
Engine
Warmup
Active
Trans
Warmup
Engine
Stop-Start
High
Efficiency
Alternator
High
Efficiency
Lighting
Solar
Panels
Total
Menu
Credits
Aston Martin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BMW
1.2
2.7
2.2
-
2.9
-
1.0
-
10.0
Ferrari
-
0.2
-
1.5
-
-
1.0
-
2.7
Ford
1.2
3.9
2.2
2.8
2.6
0.9
0.5
-
10.0
GM
0.9
3.8
1.8
0.7
3.0
0.9
0.7
-
10.0
Honda
0.2
3.0
2.2
1.3
2.7
0.4
0.5
-
10.0
Hyundai
0.1
3.2
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.0
9.7
Jaguar Land Rover
1.1
4.1
-
2.8
4.3
-
0.5
-
10.0
Kia
0.1
3.3
0.7
1.7
1.5
0.7
0.2
-
8.1
Lucid
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
-
1.0
Mazda
0.3
3.8
0.7
2.9
-
0.1
-
-
7.9
McLaren
0.6
-
-
1.5
1.5
-
0.8
-
4.4
Mercedes
-
3.3
-
-
1.0
-
0.9
-
5.3
Mitsubishi
0.4
0.9
0.1
2.2
0.0
0.4
-
-
4.0
Nissan
0.4
2.5
0.9
1.3
0.4
0.9
0.5
-
6.9
Rivian
-
2.9
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
3.6
Stellantis
0.9
3.9
2.9
1.8
3.0
0.4
0.3
-
10.0
Subaru
0.2
1.4
-
2.8
2.1
0.7
0.5
-
7.7
Tesla
1.2
3.1
-
-
-
-
0.7
-
4.9
Toyota
0.2
3.6
0.3
1.3
1.8
0.5
0.6
-
8.3
VW
0.2
2.5
2.4
1.0
3.0
1.6
0.8
-
10.0
Volvo
-
3.7
2.6
-
2.0
0.7
1.0
-
9.9
All Manufacturers
0.6
3.3
1.4
1.5
2.2
0.7
0.5
0.0
9.0
106
-------
GM is the only manufacturer to date to have claimed off-cycle credits based on 5-cycle
testing. These credits are for an auxiliary electric pump used on certain GM gasoline-
electric hybrid vehicles to keep engine coolant circulating in cold weather while the vehicle
is stopped and the engine is off. This enables the engine stop-start system to turn off the
engine more often during cold weather, while maintaining a comfortable temperature
inside the vehicle. GM received off-cycle credits during the early credits program for
equipping hybrid full size pick-up trucks with this technology and has since applied the
technology to several other vehicles through model year 2017. They did not claim credits
for this technology in model year 2022.
Off-Cycle Performance Credits Based on an Alternative Methodology
This third pathway for off-cycle technology performance credits allows manufacturers to
seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining off-cycle technology
C02 credits.23 This option is only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be
adequately demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this
option for model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate CO2 reductions for technologies that
are on the off-cycle menu, or reductions that exceed those available via use of the menu.
The regulations require that EPA seek public comment on and publish each manufacturer's
application for credits sought using this pathway.
After reviewing the petitions submitted by manufacturers, EPA drafts and publishes
decision documents that explain the impacts and applicability of the unique alternative
method technologies via the Federal Register. Each alternative methodology Federal
Register notice and technology explanation can be found through the following EPA
website: https://www.epa.gov/ve-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-
greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards. To date, thirteen manufacturers have applied for and
received credits for technologies through alternative methodologies. Several applications
request credits for technologies initially submitted by other manufacturers, thus, more
than one manufacturer may ultimately request credits for similar technology. The off-cycle
technologies that have been approved to date under the alternative pathway include:
Menu technologies (alternative values or retroactive credits)
EPA has approved credit requests for retroactive credits back to model year 2012, or for
manufacturers that have requested alternative credit amounts. This includes credits for
23 See 40CFR 86.1869-12(d).
107
-------
stop-start systems, high-efficiency lighting, infrared glass glazing, solar reflective paint, and
active seat ventilation technologies.
High Efficiency Air Conditioning Compressors
In September of 2015, EPA approved credits for the use of high efficiency air conditioner
compressors. These systems provide real-world benefits using an A/C compressor with
variable crankcase suction valve technology.
High Efficiency Alternators
In December of 2016, EPA approved credits for the use of high efficiency alternators. High
efficiency alternators use new technologies that reduce the overall load on the engine
while continuing to meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in lower
fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators were added to the
off-cycle menu credits beginning in model year 2020, although some manufacturers
continue to receive credits through alternative methodology instead.
Active Climate Controlled Seats
In September of 2017, EPA approved credits for the use of active climate-controlled seats,
which provide cooled air directly to the occupants through the seats, thus reducing the
overall load on the air conditioning system.
Brush less Mo to rs
In October of 2019, EPA approved credits for the use of a pulse width modulated brushless
motor power controller through the alternative methodology pathway. This "brushless
motor" technology is used to improve the efficiency of the HVAC system.
Cold Storage Evaporators
In October of 2020, EPA approved credits for a "cold storage evaporator." Air-conditioning
systems employing this technology essentially freeze a mass of material during normal
operation, such that the material can provide cabin cooling when the engine is off. This
allows stop-start systems to leave the engine off longer, resulting in reductions in
emissions and fuel usage.
Summary of Off-Cycle Alternative Methodology Credits
Since the beginning of the light-duty GHG program, twelve manufacturers have been
granted approval for alternative methodology off-cycle GHG credits using the alternative
methodology pathway. Eight manufacturers requested off-cycle credits based on the
108
-------
approved alternative methodologies in model year 2022. Table 5.4 shows the impact of the
credits submitted for model year 2022. On a total fleetwide basis, the aggregated credit is
0.2 g/mi for model year 2022.
Table 5.4. Model Year 2022 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative
Methodology, by Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Menu
Tech-
nologies
A/C
Com-
pressor
High-
Efficiency
Alternator
Brushless
Motors
Cold
Storage
Evap-
orator
Total
Alternative
Methodology
Credits
GM
-
-
-
0.1
-
0.1
Honda
-
-
-
-
0.7
0.7
Hyundai
0.0
0.7
-
-
-
0.7
Mazda
0.8
-
-
-
-
0.8
Mitsubishi
0.7
-
-
-
-
0.7
Nissan
-
0.1
-
-
-
0.1
Stella ntis
-
-
0.3
-
-
0.3
Subaru
-
-
-
0.0
-
0.0
All Manufacturers
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
Off-Cycle Performance Credit Summary
In total, the industry achieved 9.2 g/mi of off-cycle performance credits in model year 2022.
More than 95% of those credits were claimed using technologies, and credit definitions, on
the off-cycle menu. The remaining credits were due almost entirely to manufacturer
submitted alternative methodologies. Figure 5.9 shows the average credit, in g/mi, that
each manufacturer achieved in model year 2022. Honda achieved the highest gram per
mile benefit from off-cycle credits at 10.7 g/mi, followed closely by several manufacturers
around 10.0 g/mi. Most manufacturers achieved at least some off-cycle credits; Aston
Martin was the only manufacturer to not report any off-cycle credits for model year 2022.
109
-------
Figure 5.9. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022
Alternative Standards for Methane and Nitrous Oxide
As part of the GHG Program, EPA set emission standards for methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O) at 0.030 g/mi for CH4and 0.010 g/mi for N20. Current levels of CH4 and N20
emissions are generally well below these established standards, however the caps were set
to prevent future increases in emissions.
There are three different ways for a manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with these
standards. First, manufacturers may submit test data as they do for all other non-GHG
emission standards; this option is used by most manufacturers. Because there are no
credits or deficits involved with this approach, and there are no consequences with respect
to the C02 fleet average calculation, the manufacturers are not required to submit this data
as part of their GHG reporting. Hence, this GHG compliance report does not include
information from manufacturers using this option.
110
-------
The second option for manufacturers is to include CH4 and N2O, on a C02-equivalent basis,
when calculating their fleet average performance values, in lieu of demonstrating
compliance with the regulatory caps. This method directly accounts for CH4 and N20,
increasing the performance value of a manufacturer's fleets, while the standards remain
unchanged. Analyses of emissions data have shown that use of this option may add
approximately 3 g/mi to a manufacturer's fleet average. No manufacturers have elected to
use this approach since the 2019 model year.
The third option for complying with the CH4 and N2O standards allows manufacturers to
propose an alternative, less stringent CH4 and/or N2O standard for any vehicle that may
have difficulty meeting the specific standards. However, manufacturers that use this
approach must also calculate the increased emissions due to the less stringent standards
and the production volumes of the vehicles to which those standards apply, and then add
that impact from their overall fleet performance. Ten manufacturers made use of the
flexibility offered by this approach in the 2022 model year. In aggregate, the impact of the
methane and nitrous oxide flexibilities resulted in an increase in the industry-wide
performance of about 0.2 g/mi.
Summary of Manufacturer Performance
Each of the performance credits and adjustments described here have been used by
manufacturers as part of their compliance strategies under the GHG program. As
described above, the availability of these provisions, and the magnitude of their impact,
has varied both by manufacturer and model year. Table 5.5 through Table 5.10 below
detail the impact of these provisions by manufacturer for model year 2022, and for the
aggregated industry over the course of the GHG Program. The performance values in these
tables can be derived by subtracting the credits and adjustment from the 2-Cycle Tailpipe
value.
111
-------
Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, All (g/mi)
Performance Credits and Adjustments
2-Cycle
Adv.
Off-
ch4&
Performance
Manufacturer
Tailpipe
Tech
FFV
A/C
Cycle
n2o
Value
Aston Martin
381
-
-
15.2
-
-
366
BMW
267
-
-
21.6
10.0
-0.0
236
Ferrari
399
-
-
13.8
2.7
-
383
Ford
294
-
-
23.8
10.0
-0.1
260
GM
314
-
-
22.5
10.1
-0.6
282
Honda
237
-
-
20.1
10.7
-
207
Hyundai
236
-
-
19.2
10.4
-0.1
207
Jaguar Land Rover
326
-
-
23.6
10.0
-
293
Kia
243
-
-
18.9
8.1
-0.1
216
Lucid
0
-
-
17.0
1.0
-
-18
Mazda
255
-
-
21.2
8.7
-0.7
226
McLaren
409
-
-
12.0
4.4
-
393
Mercedes
293
-
-
13.5
5.3
-
275
Mitsubishi
235
-
-
20.3
4.7
-
210
Nissan
250
-
-
19.6
7.0
-
223
Rivian
0
-
-
21.2
3.6
-
-25
Stellantis
329
-
-
23.3
10.3
-0.4
295
Subaru
246
-
-
20.7
7.7
-0.0
218
Tesla
0
-
-
18.2
4.9
-
-23
Toyota
247
-
-
20.6
8.3
-0.2
218
VW
261
-
-
21.4
10.0
-0.0
229
Volvo
218
-
-
21.9
9.9
-
186
All Manufacturers
263
-
_
21.1
9.2
-0.2
233
<3?
-------
Table 5.6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi)
Performance Credits and Adjustments
2-Cycle
Adv.
Off-
ch4&
Performance
Model Year
Tailpipe
Tech
FFV
A/C
Cycle
n2o
Value
2012
302
-
8.1
6.1
1.0
-0.2
287
2013
294
-
7.8
6.9
1.1
-0.3
278
2014
294
-
8.9
8.5
3.3
-0.2
273
2015
286
-
6.4
9.4
3.4
-0.2
267
2016
285
-
-
10.3
3.6
-0.1
271
2017
284
2.2
-
13.8
5.6
-0.1
262
2018
280
3.7
-
16.3
7.1
-0.1
253
2019
282
3.0
-
17.9
7.7
-0.1
253
2020
275
2.9
-
19.3
8.4
-0.2
244
2021
272
3.8
-
20.8
8.7
-0.3
239
2022
263
-
-
21.1
9.2
-0.2
233
113
-------
Table 5.7. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, Car (g/mi)
Manufacturer
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Performance Credits and Adjustments
Performance
Value
Adv.
Tech
FFV
A/C
Off-
Cycle
ch4&
n2o
Aston Martin
346
-
-
13.8
-
-
332
BMW
247
-
-
18.7
6.4
-0.1
222
Ferrari
399
-
-
13.8
2.7
-
383
Ford
202
-
-
18.7
7.5
-0.1
176
GM
222
-
-
17.5
8.0
-
197
Honda
202
-
-
16.8
7.3
-
178
Hyundai
210
-
-
17.0
6.9
-0.1
186
Jaguar Land Rover
305
-
-
17.6
7.0
-
280
Kia
197
-
-
16.8
5.1
-0.1
175
Lucid
-
-
-
17.0
1.0
-
-18
Mazda
225
-
-
17.1
4.0
-0.3
204
McLaren
409
-
-
12.0
4.4
-
393
Mercedes
257
-
-
11.3
4.6
-
241
Mitsubishi
220
-
-
17.7
3.3
-
199
Nissan
207
-
-
17.9
4.3
-
185
Rivian
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Stellantis
325
-
-
18.6
4.6
-0.0
302
Subaru
248
-
-
15.3
2.9
-0.0
230
Tesla
-
-
-
17.8
4.8
-
-23
Toyota
201
-
-
17.6
5.4
-0.0
178
Volkswagen
229
-
-
17.5
7.9
-0.0
204
Volvo
134
-
-
17.9
6.7
-
109
All Manufacturers
197
-
-
17.3
6.0
-0.0
174
114
-------
Table 5.8. Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi)
Performance Credits and Adjustments
Model Year
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Adv.
Tech
FFV
A/C
Off-
Cycle
ch4&
n2o
Performance
Value
2012
259
-
4.0
5.4
0.6
-0.1
249
2013
251
-
4.0
6.3
0.7
-0.3
240
2014
250
-
4.6
7.5
2.2
-0.3
236
2015
243
-
3.1
8.1
2.3
-0.1
230
2016
240
-
-
8.8
2.3
-0.1
229
2017
235
4.3
-
10.2
3.5
0.0
217
2018
228
7.6
-
12.9
4.2
0.0
204
2019
228
6.3
-
14.7
4.5
0.0
203
2020
221
6.5
-
15.8
5.2
-0.1
194
2021
210
8.5
-
17.0
5.3
0.0
179
2022
197
-
-
17.3
6.0
0.0
174
<3?
-------
Table 5.9. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2022, Truck (g/mi)
Manufacturer
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Performance Credits and Adjustments
Performance
Value
Adv.
Tech
FFV
A/C
Off-
Cycle
ch4&
n2o
Aston Martin
434
-
-
17.2
-
-
417
BMW
285
-
-
24.2
13.1
-0.0
248
Ferrari
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ford
304
-
-
24.4
10.3
-0.1
269
GM
340
-
-
23.9
10.7
-0.7
306
Honda
271
-
-
23.2
14.0
-
234
Hyundai
268
-
-
21.8
14.6
-
232
Jaguar Land Rover
327
-
-
23.8
10.1
-
293
Kia
286
-
-
21.0
11.0
-
254
Lucid
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mazda
260
-
-
21.9
9.4
-0.8
229
McLaren
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
316
-
-
14.8
5.7
-
296
Mitsubishi
249
-
-
22.9
6.1
-
220
Nissan
308
-
-
21.9
10.5
-
276
Rivian
-
-
-
21.2
3.6
-
-25
Stellantis
329
-
-
23.9
11.0
-0.4
294
Subaru
246
-
-
21.7
8.7
-
216
Tesla
-
-
-
23.5
6.9
-
-30
Toyota
276
-
-
22.5
10.2
-0.4
244
Volkswagen
278
-
-
23.5
11.1
-0.0
243
Volvo
248
-
-
23.4
11.1
-
214
All Manufacturers
297
-
-
23.1
10.8
-0.3
263
116
-------
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi)
Performance Credits and Adjustments
2-Cycle
Adv.
Off-
ch4&
Performance
Model Year
Tailpipe
Tech
FFV
A/C
Cycle
n2o
Value
2012
369
-
14.5
7.3
1.6
-0.3
346
2013
360
-
13.8
7.9
1.7
-0.3
337
2014
349
-
14.3
9.7
4.6
-0.1
321
2015
336
-
10.3
11.0
4.6
-0.2
310
2016
332
-
-
11.8
5.1
-0.2
315
2017
330
0.2
-
17.3
7.7
-0.2
305
2018
320
0.6
-
19.0
9.3
-0.2
292
2019
318
0.7
-
20.1
9.9
-0.1
288
2020
311
0.5
-
21.6
10.6
-0.3
279
2021
304
1.4
-
22.7
10.4
-0.5
270
2022
297
-
-
23.1
10.8
-0.3
263
117
-------
C. GHG Program Credits and Deficits
The previous two sections outlined how to determine manufacturer standards and
manufacturer performance values for the current model year. The next step in the
compliance process it to compare the car and truck standards to the corresponding
performance values to determine if each fleet was above or below the standards. This
process then allows manufacturers to determine if each fleet will create GHG program
credits or deficits. These program credits are the credits available to manufacturers to
bank, trade, and ultimately show compliance with the overall GHG program.
Program credits are always expressed as mass-based credits in megagrams of C02. A mass-
based credit metric captures the performance of each manufacturer's fleets relative to the
standards, the total number of vehicles produced in each fleet, and the expected lifetime
vehicle miles travelled for those vehicles. This conversion is necessary to enable the
banking and trading of credits across manufacturer fleets, model years, and between
manufacturers. To convert g/mi emission rates to total emission reductions in Mg, see the
insert "How to Calculate Total Emissions from an Emission Rate" at the beginning of this
section.
Manufacturers also had a limited, and voluntary, option to generate program credits in
model years 2009 through 2011 from early technology adoption before the standards went
into effect. Credit expirations, credit forfeitures, and credit trades between manufacturers,
are also important in determining the overall program credits available to manufacturers.
This section will detail these components of the GHG program, which are essential in
determining manufacturer overall credit balances and manufacturer compliance with the
GHG program.
Generating Credits and Deficits from Model Year Performance
Manufacturers can calculate the credits or deficits created within a model year by
comparing their car and truck fleet standards to their respective performance values and
converting from a gram per mile emission rate to a mass-based total. When a car or truck
fleet is below the applicable standard, that fleet generates credits for the manufacturer.
Conversely, when a car or truck fleet is above the applicable standard, that fleet generates
deficits.
The GHG program evaluates car and truck fleets separately, which means that there is no
single, overall standard for manufacturers. However, it is possible to calculate an effective
overall manufacturer standard, and performance value, from the underlying passenger car
118
-------
and truck data. Figure 5.10 illustrates the performance of all manufacturers in model year
2022, compared to their effective overall standards.
Of the 22 manufacturers that produced vehicles in model year 2022, ten were below their
overall effective standards, and generated net credits (accounting for credits and deficits
from each manufacturer's car and truck fleets). Twelve manufacturers were above their
standards and generated net deficits in model year 2022. The fact that manufacturers were
above their standards in Figure 5.10 does not mean that these manufacturers were out of
compliance with the GHG program, as discussed later in this report.
Figure 5.10. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, Model Year 2022
McLaren
Jaguar Land Rover
Mercedes
Stellantis
GM
BMW
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Ferrari -
VW
Mazda
Kia
Subaru
Ford
Hyundai -
Toyota
Honda
Aston Martin
Volvo -
Lucid
Tesla
Rivian
393
M373|383
Above Standard
Below Standard
376
| Standard
9 Performance
400
Compliance GHG (g/mi)
119
-------
In model year 2022, ten manufacturers generated credits from their truck fleets, while nine
generated deficits. Eight manufacturers generated credits with their car fleets, compared to
13 that generated deficits. Table 5.11 through Table 5.16 provide a summary of the
standards, manufacturer performance, and the credits and deficits generated by each
manufacturer's car and truck fleets for model year 2022 and for the aggregated industry
for model years 2009-2022 (including early credits). These tables show only credits
generated within a model year, and do not account for credits used to offset deficits in
other model years, credits that are traded between manufacturers, or credits that have
expired or been forfeited. The tables showing combined car and truck, or overall industry
values, are aggregated from the underlying car and truck data.
120
-------
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, All
Performance
Standard
Credits
Value
Standard
Exceedance
Generated
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
Aston Martin
366
376
-10
977
2,012
BMW
236
223
12
360,669
-942,443
Ferrari
383
373
10
3,831
-7,133
Ford
260
263
-3
1,490,162
1,118,271
GM
282
259
22
1,805,182
-8,834,265
Honda
207
213
-6
1,226,934
1,599,960
Hyundai
207
210
-3
817,732
574,619
Jaguar Land Rover
293
251
42
53,649
-502,615
Kia
216
215
0
663,813
-40,931
Lucid
-18
206
-224
3,616
158,161
Mazda
226
221
5
215,483
-250,937
McLaren
393
329
64
828
-10,280
Mercedes
275
234
41
298,363
-2,592,657
Mitsubishi
210
198
11
132,753
-315,552
Nissan
223
213
11
654,870
-1,481,227
Rivian
-25
301
-326
18,828
1,385,539
Stellantis
295
266
29
1,332,863
-8,555,367
Subaru
218
219
-1
522,834
81,813
Tesla
-23
201
-224
432,971
19,164,605
Toyota
218
223
-5
2,153,277
2,380,010
Volkswagen
229
221
9
558,032
-1,058,827
Volvo
186
233
-47
109,292
1,119,171
All Manufacturers
233
234
-1
12,856,959
2,991,927
<3?
121
-------
Table 5.12. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, All
Model
Year
Performance
Value
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Standard
Exceedance
(g/mi)
Production
Credits
Generated
(Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
98,522,058
2014
2010
96,891,340
2021
2011
38,770,273
2021
2012
287
299
-12
13,446,550
33,033,097
2021
2013
278
292
-14
15,200,118
42,234,774
2021
2014
273
287
-13
15,514,338
43,292,494
2021
2015
267
274
-7
16,740,264
25,218,704
2021
2016
271
263
8
16,279,911
-27,615,344
2021
2017
262
258
4
17,015,504
-15,353,782
2023
2018
253
252
1
16,259,539
-3,204,647
2024
2019
253
246
7
16,139,407
-23,247,116
2024
2020
244
239
6
13,720,942
-17,095,353
2025
2021
239
238
1
13,811,848
-2,744,284
2026
2022
233
234
-1
12,856,959
2,991,927
2027
<3?
122
-------
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, Car
Performance
Standard
Credits
Value
Standard
Exceedance
Generated
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
Aston Martin
332
376
-44
620
5,302
BMW
222
187
35
181,532
-1,239,684
Ferrari
383
373
10
3,831
-7,133
Ford
176
187
-11
170,638
368,680
GM
197
180
17
452,194
-1,460,875
Honda
178
180
-2
641,881
263,169
Hyundai
186
182
4
476,227
-382,386
Jaguar Land Rover
280
188
92
1,831
-33,008
Kia
175
181
-6
348,216
390,725
Lucid
-18
206
-224
3,616
158,161
Mazda
204
175
29
33,186
-189,323
McLaren
393
329
64
828
-10,280
Mercedes
241
195
46
125,329
-1,126,744
Mitsubishi
199
172
27
70,435
-371,941
Nissan
185
181
4
398,922
-295,216
Rivian
-
-
-
-
-
Stellantis
302
200
102
174,297
-3,463,692
Subaru
230
175
55
94,888
-1,016,006
Tesla
-23
197
-220
403,561
17,301,767
Toyota
178
180
-2
917,769
347,123
Volkswagen
204
179
25
214,343
-1,032,265
Volvo
109
189
-80
32,428
503,662
All Manufacturers
174
183
-9
4,746,572
8,710,036
<3?
123
-------
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, Car
Model
Year
Performance
Value
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Standard
Exceedance
(g/mi)
Production
Credits
Generated
(Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
58,018,752
2014
2010
50,856,700
2021
2011
8,831,637
2021
2012
249
267
-18
8,657,393
30,484,967
2021
2013
240
261
-21
9,747,624
39,249,608
2021
2014
236
253
-17
9,209,352
30,407,996
2021
2015
230
241
-12
9,602,215
22,043,043
2021
2016
229
231
-2
9,012,178
3,411,251
2021
2017
217
219
-2
8,954,269
3,006,038
2023
2018
204
209
-6
7,800,403
8,647,205
2024
2019
203
198
4
7,170,630
-5,819,030
2024
2020
194
189
4
6,029,845
-5,026,755
2025
2021
179
185
-6
5,119,934
5,969,410
2026
2022
174
183
-9
4,746,572
8,710,036
2027
<3?
124
-------
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2022, Truck
Performance
Standard
Credits
Value
Standard
Exceedance
Generated
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
Aston Martin
417
376
41
357
-3,290
BMW
248
255
-7
179,137
297,241
Ferrari
0
0
0
-
-
Ford
269
272
-3
1,319,524
749,591
GM
306
282
24
1,352,988
-7,373,390
Honda
234
244
-10
585,053
1,336,791
Hyundai
232
244
-12
341,505
957,005
Jaguar Land Rover
293
253
40
51,818
-469,607
Kia
254
248
6
315,597
-431,656
Lucid
0
0
0
-
-
Mazda
229
228
1
182,297
-61,614
McLaren
0
0
0
-
-
Mercedes
296
258
38
173,034
-1,465,913
Mitsubishi
220
224
-4
62,318
56,389
Nissan
276
255
21
255,948
-1,186,011
Rivian
-25
301
-326
18,828
1,385,539
Stellantis
294
275
19
1,158,566
-5,091,675
Subaru
216
227
-11
427,946
1,097,819
Tesla
-30
250
-280
29,410
1,862,838
Toyota
244
251
-7
1,235,508
2,032,887
Volkswagen
243
243
0
343,689
-26,562
Volvo
214
249
-35
76,864
615,50
All Manufacturers
263
260
3
8,110,387
-5,718,109
<3?
125
-------
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2022, Truck
Model
Year
Performance
Value
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Standard
Exceedance
(g/mi)
Production
Credits
Generated
(Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
40,503,306
2014
2010
46,034,640
2021
2011
29,938,636
2021
2012
346
349
-2
4,789,157
2,548,130
2021
2013
337
339
-3
5,452,494
2,985,166
2021
2014
321
330
-9
6,304,986
12,884,498
2021
2015
310
312
-2
7,138,049
3,175,661
2021
2016
315
297
19
7,267,733
-31,026,595
2021
2017
305
295
10
8,061,235
-18,359,820
2023
2018
292
286
6
8,459,136
-11,851,852
2024
2019
288
279
9
8,968,777
-17,428,086
2024
2020
279
272
7
7,691,097
-12,068,598
2025
2021
270
265
4
8,691,914
-8,713,694
2026
2022
263
260
3
8,110,387
-5,718,109
2027
<3?
126
-------
Program Credits for Early Adoption of Technology
The GHG program included an optional provision that allowed manufacturers to generate
credits in the 2009-2011 model years, prior to the implementation of regulatory standards
in model year 2012. This flexibility allowed manufacturers to generate credits for achieving
tailpipe C02 emissions targets or introducing emission-reducing technology before model
year 2012. Sixteen manufacturers participated in the early credits program, generating a
large bank of credits for the industry before the standards took effect in model year 2012.
The pathways for earning credits under the early credit program mirrored those built into
the annual GHG requirements, including improved tailpipe C02 performance and A/C
systems, off-cycle credits for other technologies that reduced CO2 emissions, and credits
for manufacturing electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.
Of the 234 Tg of early credits, 85% of those credits were generated from performing better
than the tailpipe CO2 emissions targets established in the regulations. To earn credits
based on tailpipe C02 performance, manufacturers could demonstrate tailpipe emissions
levels below either California or national standards, dependent on the state the car was
sold in. California developed GHG standards prior to the adoption of the EPA GHG
program, and some states had adopted these standards. In all other states, CO2 levels were
calculated based on the national CAFE standards. Of the remaining early credits, about 10%
were created through improving A/C system leakage, 4% were due to A/C efficiency
improvements, and just over 1 % were due to off-cycle credits for other technologies.
The model year 2009 credits could not be traded between companies and were limited to a
5-year credit life. Thus, all credits earned in model year 2009, or about a third of the early
credits generated, expired at the end of the 2014 model year if not already used. The
remaining 2010-2011 model year credits were banked and were usable through the 2021
model year. After model year 2021 any remaining unused model year 2010 or 2011 credits
expired. Manufacturers can no longer generate early credits. The distribution of early
credits earned by manufacturer is shown in Figure 5.11. More details of the early credit
program can be found in the "Early Credits Report," which was released by EPA in 2013.24
24 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light-Duty Automobiles: Status of Early Credit Program for Model
Years 2009-2011, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Report No. EPA-420-R-13-005, March 2013.
127
-------
Figure 5.11. Early Credits by Manufacturer
I
ill
li
#
Expiration and Forfeiture of Credits
All credits earned within the GHG program have expiration dates, based on the model year
in which they were earned. Any credits held by any manufacturer past their expiration date
will be considered expired, and will not be available to offset future deficits, to sell to other
manufacturers, or usable in any other way. Credits earned in model year 2009 under the
early credit program were the first to expire, at the end of model year 2014. At that point,
76 Tg of credits expired. This represented 22% of all existing credits.
At the end of model year 2021, all unused credits from model years 2010 to 2016 expired.
These expiring credits, 81 Tg in total, were 39% of the existing industry-wide credit balance.
The remaining credits that currently exist, or are generated in future years, will expire
according to the schedule published in the December 2021 final light-duty rulemaking and
shown in Table 5.17. There are no expiring credits after model year 2022.
128
-------
Table 5.17 Credit Expiration Schedule
Credits earned in
model year:
Expire at the end of
model year:
2017
2018
2019
2023
2024
2024
2020 and later
credits last 5 years
A limited number of credits have been forfeited by several manufacturers. Although
forfeiture and expiration both have fundamentally the same effect - a loss or removal of
credits - forfeiture is considered a different and less common mechanism, brought about
by unique circumstances. Hyundai and Kia forfeited a specified quantity of 2013 model
year credits after an investigation into their testing methods that concluded with a
settlement announced on November 3, 2014.
VW similarly forfeited some credits, deducted from their 2017 model year balance. In the
course of the investigation concerning defeat devices in VW's diesel vehicles, the EPA
discovered that the company employed software to manage vehicle transmissions in
gasoline vehicles. This software causes the transmission to shift gears during the EPA-
prescribed emissions test in a manner that sometimes optimizes fuel economy and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the test, but not under normal driving conditions.
This resulted in inflated fuel economy values for some vehicles. VW forfeited credits to
account for the higher CO2 emissions of these vehicles in actual use.
Additional manufacturers forfeited credits because of their participation in the Temporary
Lead Time Alternative Allowance Standards (TLAAS). Opting into these less stringent
standards, which are no longer available, came with some restrictions, including the
requirement that any credits accumulated by using the TLAAS standards may not be used
by or transferred to a fleet meeting the primary standard. This impacted Porsche, which
was bought by VW in 2012. Porsche held some credits earned against the TLAAS standards
at the time they were merged with VW, and VW was not participating in the TLAAS
program. Thus, those credits could not carry over to the merged company and were lost.
Similarly, Mercedes and Volvo reached the end of the TLAAS program, which applied
through the 2015 model year, with credits in their TLAAS bank that could not be
transferred to their post-2015 bank and thus were forfeited.
129
-------
Credit Transactions
Credit trading among manufacturers has been an important part of the program for many
manufacturers. An active credit market is enabling manufacturers to purchase credits to
demonstrate compliance, with ten manufacturers selling credits, fourteen manufacturers
purchasing credits, and nearly 110 credit transactions occurring since the inception of the
program. Twenty-one total manufacturers have made credit transactions, with three
manufacturers both selling and buying credits. Credits may be traded among
manufacturers with a great deal of flexibility, however there are several limitations,
including:
1) Manufacturers must offset any existing deficits before selling credits.
2) Manufacturers may not sell credits they do not have.
3) Manufacturers are the only parties that may engage in credit transactions and hold
credits (although a third party may facilitate transactions).
4) Manufacturers may not sell early credits created in model year 2009.
5) Manufacturers may not sell credits generated under an alternative standard
(including TLAAS and small volume manufacturer standards).
As of October 31, 2022, about 194 Tg of credits have been traded between manufacturers.
Figure 5.12 shows the total quantity of credits that have been bought or sold by
manufacturers since the beginning of the GHG program. Credits that have been sold are
shown as negative credits, since the sale of credits will reduce the selling manufacturer's
credit balance. Conversely, credits that have been purchased are shown as positive credits,
since they will increase the purchasing manufacturer's credit balance.
Manufacturers can purchase or sell credits generated in any model year. The model year
the credits were generated in remains important, as those credits must be used (and will
expire) according to the model year in which they were originally created. Figure 5.12 also
shows the distribution of credits sold and acquired by the model year after which the
credits will expire. One additional credit transaction occurred in 2021, as Volvo used
banked credits to offset the small deficit Lotus held prior to their merger into one
manufacturer under the GHG program.
130
-------
Figure 5.12. Total Credits Transactions
Sold Purchased
Credits
| Expiring 2027
j Expiring 2026
Expiring 2025
Expiring 2024
Expiring 2023
I Expired 2021
+8?
cr
A° sf ^
Manufacturer
D. End of Year GHG Program Credit Balances
The final GHG program credit balance at the end of each model year, and compliance
status, for each manufacturer relies on all the components outlined to this point in the
report. Manufacturer car and truck standards and performance within each model year,
early credits, credit trades, credit forfeitures, and credit expirations are all required to
determine final model year credit balances for each manufacturer. If a manufacturer ends
the model year with a positive credit balance, they are in compliance with the GHG
program and the accrued credits will be carried forward to the next model year.
Manufacturers that end any model year with a deficit have up to three years to offset all
deficits to avoid non-compliance and may not report deficits for more than 3 years in a
row. In addition, manufacturers may not carry forward any credits unless all deficits have
been offset.
131
-------
Using Credits to Offset Deficits
If a manufacturer generates a deficit from either their car or truck fleets, that deficit must
be offset from existing credits, if they are available. When applying credits, the oldest
available credits are applied to the current deficit by default. Credits earned in past model
years may be applied to car or truck deficits, regardless of how they were generated. Table
5.18 shows a simple example. In this case, a manufacturer generated 300,000 Mg of credits
from its car fleets in model years 2020, 2021, and 2022. The manufacturer's truck fleets did
not generate any credits or deficits in model years 2020 or 2021 but generated a deficit of
500,000 Mg in 2022. Because the oldest credits are applied first, credits generated in model
year 2020 are the first credits applied towards the 2022 truck deficit, then 2021 and 2022
credits would be applied until the deficit is offset. After offsetting the example truck deficit
in Table 5.18, this manufacturer would be left with 100,000 Mg of credits from model year
2021, and 300,000 Mg of credits from model year 2022 to bank for future use.
Table 5.18. Example of a Deficit Offset with Credits from Previous Model Years
Model
Year 2020
Model
Year 2021
Model
Year 2022
Generated Truck Credits
Generated Car Credits
0
300,000
0
300,000
-500,000
300,000
Applied to 2022 Deficits
-300,000
-200,000
Remaining Credits
0
100,000
300,000
The complete credit and deficit accounting for each manufacturer also includes the impact
of credits earned as part of the early credit program, credit trades, credit forfeitures, and
credit expirations over the full span of the GHG program. The detailed deficit offset
calculations for each manufacturer are not published in this report, since some of the
credit trade information is considered confidential business information and is not
published in detail by EPA. However, most of the underlying data for all manufacturers and
model years is available on the Automotive Trends website at
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
Compliance Status After the 2022 Model Year
EPA determines the compliance status of each manufacturer based on their credit balance
at the end of the model year, after offsetting all deficits. Because credits may not be carried
forward unless deficits from all prior model years have been resolved, a positive credit
balance means compliance with the current and all previous model years of the program. If
132
-------
a manufacturer ends the model year with any deficits, that manufacturer must offset the
deficit within three years to avoid non-compliance. For model year 2022, deficits from
model year 2019 or prior would be considered non-compliant.
Figure 5.13 shows the credit balance of all manufacturers after model year 2022 including
the breakdown of expiration dates, and the distribution of deficits, by age of the deficit. All
but one manufacturer ended the 2022 model year with a positive credit balance and are
thus in compliance with model year 2021 and all previous years of the GHG program. Kia
ended model year 2022 with a deficit, but that deficit is within the allowable time span and
will not result in non-compliance or enforcement actions from EPA. However, Kia will have
to offset the existing deficits either by producing efficient vehicles that exceed model year
2022 standards, or by purchasing credits from other manufacturers.
The breakdown of each manufacturer's final model year 2022 credit balance, based on the
source of the credits or deficits, is shown in Table 5.19. Each manufacturer has pursued a
unique combination of early credits generated in model years 2009-2011, credits or deficits
created in model years 2012-2022, and credit expirations, forfeitures, and trades to
achieve their current credit balance. The "net" credits earned in Table 5.19 are a sum of all
credits and deficits earned by a manufacturer and may not be the amount of credits
remaining due to the use of banked credits across model years. The actual distribution of
credits, by expiration date, and deficits, by the age of the deficit, are shown in Table 5.20.
133
-------
Figure 5.13. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2022
Stellantis-
Honda-
Subaru-
GM-
Toyota-
Ford-
Mercedes-
BMW-
Nissan-
Volvo-
Hyundai-
Jaguar Land Rover-
Rivian-
Mitsubishi-
Volkswagen-
Tesla-
Lucid-
Mazda-
Aston Martin-
Ferrari-
BYD Motors -
Kia-
I
| Credits
j Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Deficits
Deficits
Deficits
Expiring 2027
Expiring 2026
Expiring 2025
Expiring 2024
Expiring 2023
from 2022
from 2021
from 2020
I
10
I
20
30
40
GHG Credits (Tg of CO,)
-tjTJij
¦m
-------
Table 5.19. Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2022 (Mg)
Early Credits
Net Credits
Net Credits
Credits
Final 2022
Earned
Earned
Earned
Credits
Credits
Purchased
Credit
Manufacturer
2009-2011
2012-2021
2022
Expired
Forfeited
or Sold
Balance
Aston Martin
3,332
-20,246
2,012
-
-
35,844
20,942
BMW
1,251,522
-1,996,835
-942,443
-134,791
-
5,500,000
3,677,453
BYD Motors
-
5,568
-
-4,871
-
-
697
Coda
-
7,251
-
-
-
-7,251
-
Ferrari
-
-177,822
-7,133
-74,806
-
265,000
5,239
Ford
16,116,453
408,038
1,118,271
-12,551,923
-
-
5,090,839
GM
25,788,547
-26,015,869
-8,834,265
-15,194,361
-
38,277,251
14,021,303
Honda
35,842,334
64,391,477
1,599,960
-23,246,649
-
-50,615,245
27,971,877
Hyundai
14,007,495
-2,458,310
574,619
-11,379,410
-169,775
1,350,000
1,924,619
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-3,716,663
-502,615
-10,128
-
5,664,767
1,435,361
Karma
-
84,597
-
-56,011
-
-28,586
-
Kia
10,444,192
-8,332,512
-40,931
-2,362,882
-123,956
-
-416,089
Lotus
-
-3,147
-
-
-
3,147
-
Lucid
-
-
158,161
-
-
-60,900
97,261
Mazda
5,482,642
1,368,219
-250,937
-6,504,355
-
-
95,569
McLaren
-
-35,489
-10,280
-
-
45,769
-
Mercedes
378,272
-18,561,419
-2,592,657
-
-28,416
24,927,713
4,123,493
Mitsubishi
1,449,336
1,375,726
-315,552
-1,121,117
-
-45,123
1,343,270
Nissan
18,131,200
7,565,554
-1,481,227
-21,499,499
-
954,430
3,670,458
Porsche
-
426,439
-
-
-426,439
-
-
Rivian
-
-
1,385,539
-
-
-
1,385,539
Stellantis
10,827,083
-66,919,974
-8,555,367
-
-
102,569,367
37,921,109
Subaru
5,755,171
19,348,455
81,813
-10,206,744
-
-
14,978,695
Suzuki
876,650
-183,097
-
-265,311
-
-428,242
-
Tesla
49,772
75,568,715
19,164,605
-92
-
-94,445,204
337,796
Toyota
80,435,498
19,073,375
2,380,010
-50,620,615
-
-38,962,431
12,305,837
Volkswagen
6,613,985
-8,260,837
-1,058,827
-1,442,571
-219,419
5,000,000
632,331
Volvo
730,187
1,577,349
1,119,171
-
-85,163
-306
3,341,238
All Manufacturers
234,183,671
54,518,543
2,991,927
-156,676,136
-1,053,168
J
133,964,837
135
-------
Table 5.20. Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg)
Final 2021
Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Model Year
Credit
Expiring in
Expiring in
Expiring in
Expiring in
Expiring in
2022
Manufacturer
Balance
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
Deficits
Aston Martin
20,942
-
681
9,470
5,489
5,302
-
BMW
3,677,453
2,259,136
420,467
117,904
582,705
297,241
-
BYD Motors
697
529
168
-
-
-
-
Coda
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ferrari
5,239
1,047
4,192
-
-
-
-
Ford
5,090,839
-
-
1,854,402
2,118,166
1,118,271
-
GM
14,021,303
-
-
4,021,303
-
10,000,000
-
Honda
27,971,877
2,938,779
13,558,284
2,868,950
4,005,904
4,599,960
-
Hyundai
1,924,619
-
-
-
-
1,924,619
-
Jaguar Land Rover
1,435,361
-
-
-
1,374,461
60,900
-
Karma
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kia
(416,089)
-
-
-
-
-
-416,089
Lotus
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Lucid
97,261
-
-
-
-
97,261
-
Mazda
95,569
-
95,569
-
-
-
-
McLaren
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
4,123,493
-
-
-
-
4,123,493
-
Mitsubishi
1,343,270
-
250,038
56,866
476,697
559,669
-
Nissan
3,670,458
1,170,458
1,100,000
-
1,400,000
-
-
Porsche
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Rivian
1,385,539
-
-
-
-
1,385,539
-
Stellantis
37,921,109
-
17,477,222
8,443,887
12,000,000
-
-
Subaru
14,978,695
2,156,402
5,822,837
3,041,737
2,859,900
1,097,819
-
Suzuki
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tesla
337,796
1,766
53,704
208,003
13,928
60,395
-
Toyota
12,305,837
1,944,036
3,722,735
1,666,470
2,592,586
2,380,010
-
Volkswagen
632,331
-
-
-
632,331
-
-
Volvo
3,341,238
78,996
1,095,257
215,898
831,916
1,119,171
-
All Manufacturers
133,964,837
10,551,149
43,601,154
22,504,890
28,894,083
28,829,650
-416,089
<3?
-------
Figure 5.14 shows the overall industry performance, standards, and credit bank for all
years of the GHG program. The industry created a large bank of credits using the early
credits provision in model year 2009 through 2012. For the next three years,
manufacturers continued to generate credits, as the industry GHG performance was below
the industry-wide average standard. At the end of model year 2014, unused early credits
generated from model year 2009 expired, which reduced the overall credit balance. In
model year 2015, the industry again generated credits, however from model year 2016-
2021 the industry GHG performance has been above the standard, resulting in net
withdrawals from the bank of credits to maintain compliance. In addition, unused credits
generated in model years 2010-2016 expired at the end of model year 2021, which further
drew down the overall industry credit balance.
In model year 2022, the overall industry GHG performance fell 6 g/mi to 233 g/mi, while the
standard fell 4 g/mi to 234 g/mi. As a result, the overall industry performance was below
the standard for the first time since model year 2015, and the industry generated about 3
Tg of credits. The overall industry emerged from model year 2022 with a bank of 134 Tg of
GHG credits available for future use, as seen in Figure 5.14.
The credits available at the end of model year 2022 will expire according to the schedule
defined by the GHG Program and detailed in Table 5.20. The next group of credits to expire
will do so at the end of model year 2023. An active credit market has allowed
manufacturers to purchase credits to demonstrate compliance, with ten manufacturers
selling credits, fourteen manufacturers purchasing credits, and approximately 110 credit
trades since 2012.
After accounting for the use of credits, and the ability to carry forward a deficit, the industry
overall does not face any non-compliance issues as of the end of the 2022 model year.
137
-------
Figure 5.14. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use
E
3
CD
X
O
CD
O
c
ra
Q_
E
o
o
• Standard
¦ Performance
300-
240-
280-
260-
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
43
42
33
25 -28
234
~ I
-76
Expiration of unused
2009 credits
-16
Credit or Deficit
¦ Credit
Deficit
-3 -23
-17
-3
Expiration of unused
2010-2016 credits
T
-82
134
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Early 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Carry
CrediK Model Year to2023
-------
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data
A. Sources of Input Data
Nearly all of the data for this report are based on automakers' direct submissions to EPA.
EPA has required manufacturers to provide vehicle fuel economy to consumers since 1977
and has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United States
since 1975. The data are obtained either from testing performed by EPA at the National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from
manufacturers using official EPA test procedures.
National fuel economy standards have been in place in the United States for cars and light
trucks since 1978. The Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the responsibility for setting and enforcing fuel
economy standards through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Since
the inception of CAFE, EPA has been responsible for establishing test procedures and
calculation methods, and for collecting data used to determine vehicle fuel economy levels.
EPA calculates the CAFE value for each manufacturer and provides it to NHTSA. NHTSA
publishes the final CAFE values in its annual "Summary of Fuel Economy Performance"
reports at https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe pic/home. Since model year 2012, NHTSA and EPA
have maintained coordinated fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards that apply to
model year 2012 through model year 2026 vehicles. EPA's light-duty GHG program is
described in detail in Section 5 of this report.
The data that EPA collects for this report comprise the most comprehensive database of its
kind. For recent model years, the vast majority of data in this report comes from the
Engines and Vehicles Compliance Information System (EV-CIS) database maintained by EPA.
This database contains a broad amount of data associated with CO2 emissions and fuel
economy, vehicle and engine technology, and other vehicle performance metrics. This
report extracts only a portion of the data from the EV-CIS database.
In some cases, the data submitted by automakers are supplemented by data that were
obtained through independent research by EPA. For example, EPA relied on published data
from external sources for certain parameters of pre-model year 2011 vehicles: (1) engines
with variable valve timing (WT), (2) engines with cylinder deactivation, and (3) vehicle
footprint, as automakers did not submit this data until model year 2011. EPA projects
footprint data for the preliminary model year 2023 fleet based on footprint values for
existing models from previous years and footprint values for new vehicle designs available
A-1
-------
through public sources. In addition, vehicle 0-to-60 acceleration values are not provided by
automakers, but are either calculated from other Trends data, as discussed in Section 3, or
taken from external sources.
The website for this report has been expanded with an emphasis on allowing users to
access and evaluate more of the data behind this report. EPA plans to continue to add
content and tools on the web to allow transparent access to public data. To explore the
data using EPA's interactive data tools, visit the report webpage at
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
Preliminary vs Final Data
For each model year, automakers submit two phases of data: preliminary data provided
to EPA for vehicle certification and labeling prior to the model year sales, and final data
submitted after the completion of the model year for compliance with EPA's light-duty GHG
regulations and NHTSA's CAFE program.
Preliminary data are collected prior to the beginning of each model year and are not used
for manufacturer GHG compliance. Automakers submit "General Label" information
required to support the generation of the joint EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels that appear on all new personal vehicles. As part of these submissions, automakers
report pre-model year vehicle production projections for individual models and
configurations to EPA.
Final data are submitted a few months after the end of each model year and include
detailed final production volumes. EPA and NHTSA use this final data to determine
compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards. These end-of-the-year submissions
include detailed final production volumes. All data in this report for model years 1975
through 2022 are considered final. However, manufacturers can submit requests for
compliance credits for previous model years, so it is possible that additional credits under
the GHG program could be awarded to manufacturers.
Since the preliminary fuel economy values provided by automakers are based on projected
vehicle production volumes, they usually vary slightly from the final fuel economy values
that reflect the actual sales at the end of the model year. With each publication of this
report, the preliminary values from the previous year are updated to reflect the final
values. This allows a comparison to gauge the accuracy of preliminary projections.
Table A.1 compares the preliminary and final fleetwide real-world fuel economy values for
recent years (note that the differences for CO2 emissions data would be similar, on a
A-2
-------
percentage basis). Since model year 2011, the final real-world fuel economy values have
generally been close to the preliminary fuel economy values. In eight out of the last nine
years, manufacturer projections have led to preliminary estimates that were higher than
final data.
It is important to note that there is no perfect apples-to-apples comparison for model years
2011 -2014 due to several small differences in data, such as inclusion of alternative fuel
vehicle (AFV) data. The preliminary values in Table A.1 through model year 2014 did not
integrate AFV data, while the final values in Table A.1 are the values reported elsewhere in
this report and do include AFV data. The differences due to this would be small, on the
order of 0.1 mpgorless.
Table A.1. Comparison of Preliminary and Final Real-World Fuel Economy
Values (mpg)
Model Year
Preliminary
Value
Final Value
Final Minus
Preliminary
2011
22.8
22.3
-0.5
2012
23.8
23.6
-0.2
2013
24.0
24.2
+0.2
2014
24.2
24.1
-0.1
2015
24.7
24.6
-0.2
2016
25.6
24.7
-0.9
2017
25.2
24.9
-0.3
2018
25.4
25.1
-0.3
2019
25.5
24.9
-0.6
2020
25.7
25.4
-0.3
2021
25.3
25.4
+0.1
2022
26.4
26.0
-0.4
2023 (prelim)
26.9
A-3
-------
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
Averaging multiple fuel economy values must be done harmonically in order to obtain a
correct mathematical result. Since fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), one
critical assumption with any harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values is
whether the distance term (miles, in the numerator of mpg) is fixed or variable. This report
makes the assumption that the distance term in all mpg values is fixed, i.e., that for
purposes of calculating a harmonically averaged fuel economy value, it is assumed that the
distance term (representing miles traveled) is equivalent across various vehicle fuel
economies. This assumption is the standard practice with harmonic averaging of multiple
fuel economy values (including, for example, in calculations for CAFE standards
compliance), and simplifies the calculations involved.
Mathematically, when assuming a fixed distance term as discussed above, harmonic
averaging of multiple fuel economy values can be defined as the inverse of the average of
the reciprocals of the individual fuel economy values. It is best illustrated by a simple
example.
Consider a round trip of 600 miles. For the first 300-mile leg, the driver is alone with no
other passengers or cargo, and, aided by a tailwind, uses 10 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel
economy of 30 mpg. On the return 300-mile trip, with several passengers, some luggage,
and a headwind, the driver uses 15 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel economy of 20 mpg. Many
people will assume that the average fuel economy for the entire 600-mile trip is 25 mpg,
the arithmetic (or simple) average of 30 mpg and 20 mpg. But, since the driver consumed
10 + 15 = 25 gallons of fuel during the trip, the actual fuel economy is 600 miles divided by
25 gallons, or 24 mpg.
Why is the actual 24 mpg less than the simple average of 25 mpg? Because the driver used
more gallons while (s)he was getting 20 mpg than when (s)he was getting 30 mpg.
This same principle is often demonstrated in elementary school mathematics when an
airplane makes a round trip, with a speed of 400 mph one way and 500 mph the other way.
The average speed of 444 mph is less than 450 mph because the airplane spent more time
going 400 mph than it did going 500 mph.
As in both of the examples above, a harmonic average will typically yield a result that is
slightly lower than the arithmetic average.
The following equation illustrates the use of harmonic averaging to obtain the correct
mathematical result for the fuel economy example above:
B-1
-------
2
Average mpg =
Though the above example was for a single vehicle with two different fuel economies over
two legs of a single round trip, the same mathematical principle holds for averaging the fuel
economies of any number of vehicles. For example, the average fuel economy for a set of 10
vehicles, with three 30 mpg vehicles, four 25 mpg vehicles, and three 20 mpg vehicles would
be
(Note that, in order to maintain the concept of averaging, the total number of vehicles in the
numerator of the equation must equal the sum of the individual numerators in the
denominator of the equation.)
Arithmetic averaging, not harmonic averaging, provides the correct mathematical result for
averaging fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile, the inverse of fuel economy) and CO2
emissions (in grams per mile). In the first, round trip, example above, the first leg had a fuel
consumption rate of 10 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.033 gallons per mile. The second leg had
a fuel consumption of 15 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.05 gallons per mile. Arithmetically
averaging the two fuel consumption values, i.e., adding them up and dividing by two, yields
0.04167 gallons per mile, and the inverse of this is the correct fuel economy average of 24
mpg. Arithmetic averaging also works for C02 emissions values, i.e., the average of 200 g/mi
and 400 g/mi is 300 g/mi CO2 emissions.
In summary, fuel economy values must be harmonically averaged to maintain mathematical
integrity, while fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile) and C02 emissions values (in
grams per mile) can be arithmetically averaged.
10
Average mpg =
yr = 24.4 mpg
20/
B-2
-------
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics
The CO2 emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of two categories:
compliance data and estimated real-world data. These categories are based on the
purpose of the data, and the subsequent required emissions test procedures. The
following sections discuss the differences between compliance and real-world data and
how they relate to raw vehicle emissions test results.
2-Cycle Test Data
In 1975 when the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation was put into place,
EPA tested vehicles using two dynamometer-based test cycles, one based on city driving
and one based on highway driving. CAFE was—and continues to be—required by law to use
these "2-cycle tests". For consistency, EPA also adopted this approach for the GHG
regulations.
Originally, the fuel economy values generated from the "2-cycle" test procedure were used
both to determine compliance with CAFE requirements and to inform consumers of their
expected fuel economy via the fuel economy label. Today, the raw 2-cycle test data are
used primarily in a regulatory context as the basis for determining the final compliance
values for CAFE and GHG regulations.
The 2-cycle testing methodology has remained largely unchanged25 since the early 1970s.
Because of this, the 2-cycle fuel economy and CO2 values can serve as a useful comparison
of long-term trends. Previous versions of this report included 2-cycle fuel economy and C02
data, referred to as "unadjusted" or "laboratory" values. These 2-cycle fuel economy values
are still available on the report website for reference. It is important to note that these 2-
cycle fuel economy values do not exactly correlate to the 2-cycle tailpipe CO2 emissions
values provided in Section 5 for the GHG regulations. There are three methodological
reasons for this:
25 There were some relatively minor test procedure changes made in the late 1970s that, in the aggregate,
made the city and highway tests slightly more demanding, i.e., the unadjusted fuel economy values for a given
car after these test procedure changes were made are slightly lower relative to prior to the changes. EPA has
long provided CAFE "test procedure adjustments" (TPAs) for passenger cars in recognition of the fact that the
original CAFE standards were based on the EPA test procedures in place in 1975 (there are no TPAs for light
trucks). The resulting impacts on the long-term unadjusted fuel economy trends are very small. The TPAs for
cars vary but are typically in the range of 0.2-0.5 mpg for cars, or 0.1-0.3 mpg when the car TPAs are averaged
over the combined car/truck fleet.
C-1
-------
1. The GHG regulations require a car and truck weighting based on a slightly higher
lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for trucks. The 2-cycle fuel economy values do
not account for this difference.
2. The GHG regulations allow manufacturers to use an optional compliance approach,
which adds nitrous oxide and methane emissions to their 2-cycle CO2 emissions.
3. The GHG regulations and CAFE regulations result in very slightly different annual
production values. Prior to model year 2017, the 2-cycle fuel economy values rely on
CAFE production values (see Appendix D).
GHG Compliance Data
Compliance data in this report are used to determine how the manufacturers are
performing under EPA's GHG program. These data are reported in the Executive Summary
and Section 5. The 2-cycle CO2 test values form the basis for the compliance data, but there
are some important differences due to provisions in the standards. Manufacturers' model
year performance is calculated based on the measured 2-cycle CO2 tailpipe emissions as
well as optional performance credits and adjustments that manufacturers may qualify for
and use.
Compliance data also includes the overall credit balances held by each manufacturer, and
may incorporate credit averaging, banking, and trading by manufacturers. The compliance
process is explained in detail in Section 5. Compliance CO2 data is not comparable to
estimated real-world CO2 data, as described below.
Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Data
Estimated real-world (previously called "adjusted") data is EPA's best estimate of real-world
fuel economy and CO2 emissions, as reported in Sections 1 -4 of this report. The real-world
values are the best data for researchers to evaluate new vehicle CO2 and fuel economy
performance. Unlike compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data has
evolved over time, along with technology and driving habits. These changes in
methodology are detailed in Appendix D.
Calculating estimated real-world fuel economy
Estimated real-world fuel economy data are currently measured based on the "5-cycle" test
procedure that utilizes high-speed, cold start, and air conditioning tests in addition to the 2-
cycle tests to provide data more representative of real-world driving. These additional
laboratory tests capture a wider range of operating conditions (including hot/cold weather
C-2
-------
and higher acceleration) that an average driver will encounter. City and highway results are
weighted 43% / 57%, consistent with fleetwide driver activity data.
Calculating estimated real-world CO2 emissions
The estimated real-world C02 emissions shown in Sections 1-4 are not based directly on
the 2-cycle tested values, but rather they are based on calculated values that convert
estimated real-world fuel economy values to CO2 using emission factors. This approach is
taken because: 1) test data are not available for most historic years of data, and 2) some
manufacturers choose to use an optional compliance approach which adds nitrous oxide
(N20) and methane (CH4) emissions to their C02 emissions (also referred to as Carbon
Related Exhaust Emissions, or CREE), leading to slightly different test results.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles are calculated by dividing
8,887 g/gal by the fuel economy of the vehicle. The 8,887 g/gal emission factor is a typical
value for the grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline test fuel and assumes all the carbon is
converted to CO2. For example, 8,887 g/gal divided by a gasoline vehicle fuel economy of 30
mpg would yield an equivalent CO2 emissions value of 296 grams per mile.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions for diesel vehicles are calculated by dividing
10,180 g/gal by the diesel vehicle fuel economy value. The 10,180 g/gal diesel emission
factor is higher than for a gasoline vehicle because diesel fuel has a 14.5% higher carbon
content per gallon than gasoline. Accordingly, a 30-mpg diesel vehicle would have a C02
equivalent value of 339 grams per mile. Emissions for vehicles other than gasoline and
diesel are also calculated using appropriate emissions factors.
Example Comparison of Fuel Economy Metrics
The multiple ways of measuring fuel economy and GHG emissions can understandably
lead to confusion. As an illustration to help the reader understand the various fuel
economy values that can be associated with an individual vehicle, Table 1.2 shows three
different fuel economy metrics for the model year 2023 Toyota Prius Eco. The 2-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values are direct fuel economy measurements from the 2-cycle
tests and are harmonically averaged with a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to generate a
combined value. The 2-cycle laboratory tested city fuel economy of the Prius Eco is 83 mpg,
the highway fuel economy is 78 mpg, and the combined 2-cycle value is 80 mpg.
Using the 5-cycle methodology, the Toyota Prius Eco has a vehicle fuel economy label value
of 57 mpg city and 56 mpg highway. On the vehicle label, these values are harmonically
averaged using a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to determine a combined value of 57
C-3
-------
mpg. The estimated real-world fuel economy for the Prius Eco, which is the set of values
used in calculations for this report, has the same city and highway fuel economy as the
label, but the 43% city and 57% highway weighting leads to a combined value of 56 mpg,
which is one mpg less than the values found on the label.
Table C.1. Fuel Economy Metrics for the Model Year 2023 Toyota Prius Eco
Fuel
Fuel Economy Value
(MPG)
Economy
Metric
Purpose
City/ Highway
Weighting
Test
Basis
Combined
City/Hwy City Hwy
2-cycle Test
(unadjusted)
Basis for manufacturer
compliance with
standards
55% / 45%
2-cycle
80 83 78
Label
Consumer information
to compare individual
vehicles
55% / 45%
5-cycle
57 57 56
Estimated
Real-World
Best estimate of real-
world performance
43% / 57%
5-cycle
56 57 56
Greenhouse Gases other than CO2
In addition to tailpipe CO2 emissions, vehicles may create greenhouse gas emissions in
several other ways. The combustion process can result in emissions of N20, and CH4, and
leaks in vehicle air conditioning systems can release refrigerants, which are also
greenhouse gases, into the environment. N2O, CH4, and air conditioning greenhouse gases
are discussed as part of the GHG regulatory program in Section 5. Estimated real-world CO2
emissions in Sections 1 -4 only account for tailpipe C02 emissions.
The life cycle of the vehicle (including manufacturing and vehicle disposal) and the life cycle
of the fuels (including production and distribution) can also create significant greenhouse
gases. Life cycle implications of vehicles and fuels can vary widely based on the vehicle
technology and fuel and are outside the scope of this report. However, there is academic
research, both published and ongoing, in this area for interested readers.
C-4
-------
D. Historical Changes in the Database and
Methodology
Over the course of this report's publication, there have been some instances where
relevant methodologies and definitions have been updated. Since the goal of this report is
to provide the most accurate data and science available, updates are generally propagated
back to through the historical database. The current version of this report supersedes all
previous reports.
Changes in Estimated Real-world Fuel Economy and CO2
The estimated real-world fuel economy values in this report are closely related to the label
fuel economy values. Over the course of this report, there have been three updates to the
fuel economy label methodology (for model years 1985, 2008, and 2017), and these
updates were propagated through the Trends database. However, there are some
important differences in how the label methodology updates have been applied in this
report. This section discusses how these methodologies have been applied, partially or in
full, to the appropriate model years based on the authors' technical judgement. The
changes are intended to provide accurate real-world values for vehicles at the time they
were produced to better reflect available technologies, changes in driving patterns, and
composition of the fleet. These changes are also applicable to real-world CO2 values, which
are converted from fuel economy values using emissions factors.
Model year 1975-1985: Universal Multipliers
The first change to the label methodology occurred when EPA recognized that changing
technology and driving habits led to real-world fuel economy results that over time were
diverging from the fuel economy values measured using the 2-cycle tests. To address this
issue, EPA introduced an alternative calculation methodology in 1985 that applied a
multiplication factor to the 2-cycle test data of 0.9 for city and 0.78 for highway. The
estimated real-world fuel economy values from model year 1975-1985 in this report were
calculated using the same multiplication factors that were required for the model year
1985 label update. The authors believe that these correction factors were appropriate for
new vehicles from model year 1975 through 1985. The combined fuel economy and CO2
values are based on a 55% city / 45% highway weighting factor, consistent with the CAFE
and label fuel economy calculations.
D-1
-------
Model year 1986-2010: The 2006 5-cycle methodology and 43% City / 57%
Highway Weighting
In 2006, EPA established a major change to the fuel economy label calculations by
introducing the 5-cycle methodology26. In addition to the city and highway tests required
for 2-cycle fuel economy, the 5-cycle methodology introduces tests for high speeds (US06),
air-conditioning (SC03), and a cold temperature test. It also indirectly accounts for a
number of other factors that are not reflected in EPA laboratory test data (e.g., changing
fuel composition, wind, road conditions) through the use of a 9.5% universal downward
adjustment factor. The change from the universal adjustment factors to the 2006 5-cycle
method lowered estimated real-world fuel economy values, particularly for high fuel
economy vehicles. In the 2006 rulemaking, EPA projected an overall average fleetwide
adjustment of 11 % lower for city fuel economy and 8% lower for highway fuel economy.
For model year 1986-2004, the authors implemented the 2006 5-cycle methodology by
assuming the changes in technology and driver behavior that led to lower real-world fuel
economy occurred in a gradual, linear manner over 20 years. We did not attempt to
perform a year-by-year analysis to determine the extent to which the many relevant factors
(including higher highway speed limits, more aggressive driving, increasing vehicle
horsepower-to-weight ratios, suburbanization, congestion, greater use of air conditioning,
gasoline composition, etc.) that have affected real-world fuel economy since 1985 have
changed over time.
Under the 5-cycle methodology, manufacturers could either: 1) perform all five tests on
each vehicle (the "full 5-cycle" method), 2) use an alternative analytical "derived 5-cycle"
method based on 2-cycle testing if certain conditions were met, or 3) voluntarily use lower
fuel economy label estimates than those resulting from the full 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle. If
manufacturers are required to perform all five tests, the results are weighted according to
composite 5-cycle equations.27 To use the derived 5-cycle method, manufacturers are
required to evaluate whether fuel economy estimates using the full 5-cycle tests are
comparable to results using the derived 5-cycle method. In recent years, the derived 5-cycle
approach has been used to generate approximately 85% of all vehicle label fuel economy
values.
For vehicles that were eligible to use the 2006 derived 5-cycle methodology, the following
equations were used to convert 2-cycle city and highway fuel economy values to label
26 See 71 Federal Register 77872, December 27, 2006.
27 See 71 Federal Register 77883-77886, December 27, 2006.
D-2
-------
economy values. These equations were based on the relationship between 2-cycle and 5-
cycle fuel economy data for the industry as a whole.
1
Label CITY =
(o.003259 + 2CYCLE CITy)
1
Label HWY =
(0.001376 + ¦ 13466
2 CYCLE HWYJ
Over the same timeframe, EPA phased in a change in the city and highway weightings used
to determine a single combined fuel economy or CO2 value. EPA's analysis of real-world
driving activity underlying the 5-cycle fuel economy methodology assumed a "speed
cutpoint" of 45 miles per hour to differentiate between (and "bin" the amount of) city and
highway driving.28 Based on this speed cutpoint, the correct weighting for correlating the
new city and highway fuel economy values with real-world driving activity data from on-
road vehicle studies, on a miles driven basis, is 43% city and 57% highway; this updated
weighting is necessary to maintain the integrity of fleetwide fuel economy performance
based on Trends data. The 55% city and 45% highway weighting is still used for both Fuel
Economy and Environment Labels and the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs.
The authors used the same gradual, linear approach to phase in the change in city and
highway weightings along with the phase-in of the 2006 5-cycle methodology.
From model year 2005 to model year 2010, the 2006 5-cycle methodology and the 43% city
and 57% highway weightings were used to determine the real-world fuel economy values
for this report. This required using the derived 5-cycle equations and the 43% city and 57%
highway weightings to recalculate real-world fuel economy values for model year 2005 to
2007, because the 2006 5-cycle methodology was not required until 2008. Model year 2008
to model year 2010 real-world fuel economy values were the same as the label fuel
economy values, except for the city and highway weightings.
Model year 2011-present: Implementing the 2017 derived 5-cycle updates
In 2015, EPA released a minor update to the derived 5-cycle equations that modified the
coefficients used to calculate derived 5-cycle fuel economy from 2-cycle test data.29 This
28 See 71 Federal Register 77904, December 27, 2006.
29 See https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/basic-information-fuel-economy-labeling and
http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display file.jsp?docid=35113&flag=1
D-3
-------
update was required under existing regulations and applies to fuel economy label
calculations for all model year 2017 and later vehicles. The following equations are used to
convert 2-cycle test data values for city and highway to label fuel economy values:
1
Label CITY =
1.1601
(o.004091 +
2CYCLE CITY.
¦)
1
Label HWY =
1.2945
(0.003191 +
2 CYCLE HWY.
¦)
The updated 5-cycle calculations introduced for model year 2017 and later labels were
based on test data from model year 2011 to model year 2016 vehicles. Therefore, the
authors chose to retroactively apply the updated 5-cycle methodology to model years 2011
to 2016. This required recalculating the real-world fuel economy of vehicles from model
year 2011 to 2016 using the new derived 5-cycle equations. Vehicles that conducted full 5-
cycle testing or voluntarily lowered fuel economy values were unchanged. The 43% city and
57% highway weightings were maintained. The changes for model years 2011 -2016 due to
the 5-cycle update were relatively small (0.1 to 0.2 mpg overall) and did not noticeably alter
the general data trends, therefore the authors determined that a phase-in period was not
required for this update.
Figure D.1 below summarizes the impact of the changes in real-world data methodology
relative to the 2-cycle test data, which has had a consistent methodology since 1975. Over
time, the estimated real-world fuel economy of new vehicles has continued to slowly
diverge from 2-cycle test data, due largely to changing technology, driving patterns, and
vehicle design. See Appendix C for more information.
D-4
-------
Figure D.1. Estimated Real-World versus 2-Cycle Fuel Economy since Model
Year 1975
Phase I
1975-1985
Universal
adjustment factors
55/45% weighting
Phase II
1986-2006
Phase III
2007-2010
Phase IV
2011-present
2006 5-cycle is phase-in
43/57% weighting phase-in
5-cycle
43/57%
weighting
Updated 5-cycle
43/57% weighting
35
30
25
20 -|
15
10
5
0
f Ratio of \
Real-World
Estimated
to 2-cycle:
V 75.3% J
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
— 2-cycle method
unchanged
since 1975
- Estimated
Real-World
Phases I - IV
Other Database Changes
Addition of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
Beginning in 2011 medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), those SUVs and passenger
vans (but not pickup trucks) with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds, are included in the light-duty truck category. This coincided with new regulations
by NHTSA to treat these vehicles as light-duty, rather than heavy-duty, vehicles beginning in
model year 2011. This represents a minor change to the database, since the number of
MDPVs is much smaller than it once was (e.g., only 6,500 MDPVs were sold in model year
2012). It should be noted that this is one change to the database that has not been
propagated back through the historic database, as we do not have MDPV data prior to
model year 2011. Accordingly, this represents a small inflection point for the database for
the overall car and truck fleet in model year 2011; the inclusion of MDPVs decreased
average real-world fuel economy by 0.01 mpg and increased average real-world CO2
emissions by 0.3 g/mi, compared to the fleet without MDPVs. The impacts on the truck fleet
only were about twice as high, but still very small in absolute terms. Pickup trucks above
8,500 pounds are not included in this report.
D-5
-------
Addition of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Data from alternative fuel vehicles are integrated into the overall database, beginning with
MY 2011 data. These vehicles include electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, fuel
cell vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles. C02 emissions from alternative fuel
vehicles represent tailpipe emissions, and fuel economy for these vehicles is reported as
mpge (miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent), or the miles an alternative fuel vehicle can
travel on an amount of energy equivalent to that in a gallon of gasoline. Sales data prior to
MY 2011 are included in some cases based on available industry reports (e.g., Ward's
Automotive data).
Changes in Vehicle Classification Definitions
The car-truck classifications in this report follow the current regulatory definitions used by
EPA and NHTSA for compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards (see definitions
for passenger automobiles (cars) and non-passenger automobiles (trucks) in 49 CFR 523).
These current definitions differ from those used in the 2010 and older versions of the Light-
Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends report, and
reflect a decision by NHTSA to reclassify many small, 2-wheel drive sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) from the light truck category to the passenger car category, beginning with model
year 2011. When this re-classification was initiated in the 2011 report, the absolute truck
share decreased by approximately 10%.
The current car-truck definitions have been propagated back throughout the entire
historical Trends database to maintain the integrity of long-term trends of car and truck
production share. Since the authors did not have all of the requisite technical information
on which to make retroactive car-truck classifications, we used engineering judgment to
classify past models.
This report previously presented data on more vehicle types, but recent vehicle design has
led to far less distinction between vehicle types and reporting on more disaggregated
vehicle types was no longer useful.
Manufacturer Definitions
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, the current
manufacturer definitions are generally applied to all prior model years. This maintains
consistent manufacturer and make definitions over time, which enables better
identification of long-term trends. However, some of the compliance data maintain the
D-6
-------
previous manufacturer definitions where necessary to preserve the integrity of compliance
data as they were accrued.
Differences in Production Data Between CAFE and GHG Regulations
The data used to discuss real-world trends in Sections 1 through 4 of this report are based
on production volumes reported under CAFE prior to model year 2017, not the GHG
standards. The production volume levels automakers provide in their final CAFE reports
may differ slightly from their final GHG reports (typically less than 0.1 %) because of
different reporting requirements. The EPA regulations require emission compliance in the
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, whereas the CAFE program
requires data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico only. All
compliance data detailed in Section 5, for all years, are based on production volumes
reported under the GHG standards. Starting with model year 2017 and forward, the real-
world data are also based on production volumes reported under EPA's GHG standards. As
described above, the difference in production volumes is very small and does not impact
the long-term trends or analysis.
D-7
-------
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) have continued to gain
market share. While overall market penetration of these vehicles is still relatively low, their
production share is projected to reach 12% in model year 2023. This section addresses
some of the technical metrics used both to quantify EV and PHEV operation and to
integrate data from these vehicles with gasoline and diesel vehicle data.
EVs operate using only energy stored in a battery from external charging. PHEVs blend EV
technology with more familiar powertrain technology from petroleum-fueled vehicles.
Current PHEVs feature both an electric drive system designed to be charged from an
electricity source external to the vehicle (like an EV) and a gasoline internal combustion
engine. There are generally three ways that a PHEV can operate:
• Charge-depleting electric-only mode - The vehicle operates like an EV, using only
energy stored in the battery to propel the vehicle.
• Charge-depleting blended mode - The vehicle uses both energy stored in the
battery and energy from the gasoline tank to propel the vehicle. Depending on the
vehicle design and driving conditions, blended operation can include substantial
all-electric driving.
• Charge-sustaining mode - The vehicle has exhausted the stored energy in the
battery and relies on the gasoline internal combustion engine. In this mode, the
vehicle will operate much like a strong hybrid.
The presence of both electric drive and an internal combustion engine within one
powertrain results in a complex system that can be used in many different combinations,
and manufacturers are choosing to operate PHEV systems in different ways to optimize
efficiency and performance. This complicates direct comparisons among PHEV models.
This section discusses EV and PHEV metrics for several example model year 2023 vehicles.
For consistency and clarity for the reader, the data for specific vehicles discussed in this
section reflect values from the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels, which use
a 55% city and 45% highway weighting for combined fuel economy and CO2 values. When
data for these vehicles are integrated into the data for the rest of the report, the real-world
highway and city values are combined using a 43% city and 57% highway weighting.
Additionally, some PHEV calculations are also adjusted, as explained at the end of this
section.
E-1
-------
Table E.1 shows the label driving range for several EVs and PHEVs when operating only on
electricity, as well as the total electricity plus gasoline range for PHEVs. The average range
of new EVs is increasing, as shown in Section 4, and many EVs are approaching the range of
an average gasoline vehicle.30 PHEVs generally have a much smaller all electric range,
however the combined electric and gasoline range for PHEVs often exceeds gasoline-only
vehicles. Several PHEVs now exceed 500 miles of total range.
Table E.1. Model Year 2023 Example EV and PHEV Powertrain and Range
Manufacturer
Model
Fuel or
Power-
train
Electric
Range
(miles)
Total
Range
(miles)
Utility
Factor
Ford
F-150 Lightning Platinum
EV
300
300
-
GM
Bolt EV
EV
259
259
-
Hyundai
loniq 6 LRAWD 18" wheels
EV
316
316
-
Nissan
Leaf SV
EV
212
212
-
Tesla
Model 3 LRAWD
EV
358
358
-
BMW
X5xDrive45e
PHEV
31
400
0.60
Stellantis
Pacifica
PHEV
32
520
0.61
Toyota
Prius Prime SE
PHEV
45
600
0.71
Determining the electric range of PHEVs is complicated if the vehicle is capable of operating
in blended modes. For PHEVs like the Toyota Prius Prime SE, which cannot operate in
blended mode, the electric range represents the estimated range operating in electric only
mode. However, for PHEVs that operate in a blended mode, the electric range represents
the estimated range of the vehicle operating in either electric only or blended mode, due to
the design of the vehicle. For example, the BMW X5 uses electricity stored in its battery and
a small amount of gasoline to achieve an alternative fuel range of 32 miles. Some PHEVs
did not use any gasoline to achieve their electric range value on EPA test cycles; however,
certain driving conditions (e.g., more aggressive accelerations, higher speeds, and air
conditioning or heater operation) would likely cause these vehicles to operate in a blended
mode instead of an all-electric mode.
Table E.1 also introduces the concept of a utility factor. The utility factor is directly related
to the electric range for PHEVs and is a projection, on average, of the percentage of miles
that will be driven using electricity (in electric-only and blended modes) by an average
30 In addition to growing EV range, the number of public electric vehicle charging stations is growing rapidly. For
more information, see the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center at
h tt ps: //www, af d c. e n e rgv. gov/.
E-2
-------
driver. The model year 2023 Prius Prime SE, for example, has a utility factor of 0.71, i.e., it is
expected that, on average, the Escape will operate 71 % of the time on electricity and 29%
of the time on gasoline. The label utility factor calculations are based on the SAE
methodologyJ2841 that EPA has adopted for fuel economy labeling (SAE 2010).
Table E.2 shows five energy-related metrics for model year 2023 example EVs and PHEVs
that are included on the EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment labels. Comparing the
energy or fuel efficiency performance from alternative fuel vehicles raises complex issues
of how to compare different fuels. Consumers and OEMs are familiar and comfortable with
evaluating gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon, and it is
the primary efficiency metric in this report. To enable this comparison for alternative fuel
vehicles, the overall energy efficiency of vehicles operating on electricity, hydrogen, and
CNG are evaluated in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (an energy metric
described in more detail below).
Table E.2. Model Year 2023 Example EV and PHEV Fuel Economy Label Metrics
Fuel
Charge Depleting
Charge
Sustaining
Overall
Manufact
urer
Model
or
Power
-train
Electricity
(kW-hrs/
100 miles)
Gasoline Fuel
(gallons/ Economy
100 miles) (mpge)
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
Ford
F-150 Lightning
Platinum
EV
51
N/A
66
N/A
66
GM
Bolt EV
EV
28
N/A
120
N/A
120
Hyundai
loniq 6 LRAWD 18"
EV
28
N/A
121
N/A
121
Nissan
Leaf SV
EV
31
N/A
109
N/A
109
Tesla
Model 3 LRAWD
EV
26
N/A
131
N/A
131
BMW
X5 xDrive 45e
PHEV
63
0.1
50
20
32
Stellantis
Pacifica
PHEV
41
0.0
82
30
48
Toyota
Prius Prime SE
PHEV
26
0.0
127
52
89
The fourth column in Table E.2 gives electricity consumption rates for EVs and PHEVs
during charge depleting operation in units of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kW-hrs/100
miles). As shown on the vehicle label, the electricity consumption rate is based on the
amount of electricity required from an electric outlet to charge the vehicle and includes
wall-to-vehicle charging losses. The values for all of the EVs and PHEVs reflect the electricity
consumption rate required to operate the vehicle in either electric-only or blended mode
operation. PHEVs that are capable of operating in a blended mode may also consume
some gasoline in addition to electricity. Any additional gasoline used is shown in the fifth
E-3
-------
column. For example, the BMW X5 consumes 63 kW-hrs and 0.1 gallons of gasoline per 100
miles during this combination of electric-only and blended modes.
The sixth column converts the electricity consumption data in the fourth column and the
gasoline consumption data in the fifth column into a combined miles per gallon of
gasoline-equivalent (mpge) metric. The mpge metric is a measure of the miles the vehicle
can travel on an amount of energy that is equal to the amount of energy stored in a gallon
of gasoline. For a vehicle operating on electricity, mpge is calculated as 33.705 kW-
hrs/gallon divided by the vehicle electricity consumption in kW-hrs/mile. For example, for
the Leaf, 33.705 kW-hrs/gallon divided by 0.31 kW-hrs/mile (equivalent to 31 kW-hrs/100
miles) is 110 mpge.31 Because the BMW X5 consumes both electricity and gasoline over the
alternative fuel range of 31 miles, the charge depleting fuel economy of 50 mpge includes
both the electricity and gasoline consumption, at a rate of 63 kW-hrs/100 miles of electricity
and 0.1 gal/100 miles of gasoline.
The seventh column gives label fuel economy values for vehicles operating on gasoline
only, which is relevant here only for the PHEVs operating in charge sustaining mode. For
PHEVs, the EPA/NHTSA label shows both electricity consumption in kW-hrs/100 miles and
mpge, when the vehicle operates exclusively on electricity or in a blended mode, and
gasoline fuel economy in mpg, when the vehicle operates exclusively on gasoline.
The final column gives the overall mpge values reflecting the overall energy efficiency of
the vehicle for all of the fuels on which the vehicle can operate and provide a common
metric to compare vehicles that operate on different fuels. In addition to the energy
metrics in the previous columns, the one key additional parameter necessary to calculate a
combined electricity/gasoline mpge value for a PHEV is the utility factor that was
introduced in Table E.1. For EVs, the overall fuel economy in the last column is equal to the
charge depleting fuel economy, as EVs can only operate in a charge depleting mode.
Table E.3 gives vehicle tailpipe CO2 emissions values that are included on the EPA/DOT Fuel
Economy and Environment labels (and reflected in the label's Greenhouse Gas Rating).
These label values reflect EPA's best estimate of the CO2 tailpipe emissions that these
vehicles will produce, on average, in real-world city and highway operation. EVs, of course,
have no tailpipe emissions. For the PHEVs, the label CO2 emissions values utilize the same
utility factors discussed above to weight the CO2 emissions on electric and gasoline
operation.
31 The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
E-4
-------
Table E.3. Model Year 2023 Example EV and PHEV Label Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
Metrics
Ford
Manufacturer Model
F-150 Lightning Platinum
Bolt EV
loniq 6 LRAWD 18" wheels
Leaf SV
Model 3 LRAWD
X5 xDrive45e
Pacifica
Prius Prime SE
Fuel or
Powertrain
EV
Tailpipe C02
(g/mile)
0
0
0
0
0
GM
Hyundai
Nissan
Tesla
EV
EV
EV
EV
BMW
Stellantis
Toyota
PHEV
PHEV
PHEV
178
119
50
Table E.4 accounts for the "upstream" CO2 emissions associated with the production and
distribution of electricity used in EVs and PHEVs. Gasoline and diesel fuels also have CO2
emissions associated with their production and distribution, but these upstream emissions
are not reflected in the tailpipe CO2 emissions values discussed elsewhere in this report.
Combining vehicle tailpipe and fuel production/distribution sources, gasoline vehicles emit
about 80 percent of total CO2 emissions at the vehicle tailpipe with the remaining 20
percent of total CO2 emissions associated with upstream fuel production and distribution.
Diesel fuel has a similar approximate relationship between tailpipe and upstream CO2
emissions. On the other hand, vehicles powered by grid electricity emit no C02 (or other
emissions) at the vehicle tailpipe; therefore, all CO2 emissions associated with an EV are
due to fuel production and distribution. Depending on how the electricity is produced,
these fuels can have very high fuel production/distribution CO2 emissions (for example, if
coal is used with no CO2 emissions control) or very low CO2 emissions (for example, if
renewable processes with minimal fossil energy inputs are used).
Electricity production in the United States varies significantly from region to region and has
been changing over time. Hydroelectric plants provide a large percentage of electricity in
the Northwest, while coal-fired power plants produce the majority of electricity in the
Midwest. Natural gas, wind, and solar have increased their electricity market share in many
regions of the country. Nuclear power plants currently make up most of the balance of U.S.
electricity production. In order to bracket the possible GHG emissions impact, Table E.4
provides ranges with the low end of the range corresponding to the California power plant
GHG emissions factor, the middle of the range represented by the national average power
E-5
-------
plant GHG emissions factor, and the high end of the range corresponding to the power
plant GHG emissions factor for part of the Midwest (Illinois and Missouri).
Table E.4. Model Year 2023 Example EV and PHEV Upstream CO2 Emission
Metrics (g/mi)
Fuel or
Power-
train
Tailpipe + Total
Upstream C02
Tailpipe + Net
Upstream C02
Manufacturer
Model
Low
Avg
High
Low
Avg
High
Ford
F-150 Lightning
Platinum
EV
136
211
370
44
120
279
GM
Bolt EV
EV
77
120
211
31
74
164
Hyundai
loniq 6 AWD 18"
EV
77
120
210
19
62
152
Nissan
Leaf SV
EV
85
132
231
35
82
181
Tesla
Model 3 LR AWD
EV
71
111
194
16
56
139
BMW
X5xDrive45e
PHEV
325
382
503
237
294
415
Stellantis
Pacifica
PHEV
218
257
338
141
180
261
Toyota
Prius Prime SE
PHEV
113
142
201
66
93.9
153
Average Sedan/Wagon
325
325
325
260
260
260
Based on data from EPA's eGRID power plant database,32 and accounting for additional
greenhouse gas emissions impacts for feedstock processing upstream of the power
plant,33 EPA estimates that the electricity CO2 emission factors for various regions of the
country vary from 275 g C02/kW-hr in California to 750 g C02/kW-hr in the Midwest (Illinois
and Missouri), with a national average of 428 g C02/kW-hr. Emission rates for small regions
in upstate New York and Alaska have lower electricity upstream CO2 emission rates than
California. However, California is a good surrogate for the "low" end of the range because
California is a leading market for current EVs and PHEVs. Initial sales of electric vehicles
have been largely, though not exclusively, focused in regions of the country with power
plant C02 emissions factors lower than the national average, such as California, New York,
and other coastal areas. Accordingly, in terms of CO2 emissions, EPA believes that the
current "sales-weighted average" vehicle operating on electricity in the near term will likely
fall somewhere between the low end of this range and the national average.34
32 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. "Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID), 2020" Washington, DC: Office of Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air Markets Division. Available
from EPA's eGRID web site: https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
33Argonne National Laboratory 2022. GREET_1_2022 Model, greet.es.anl.gov.
34 To estimate the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating an EV or PHEV in a specific
geographical area, use the emissions calculator at www.fueleconomv.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2.
E-6
-------
The fourth through sixth columns in Table E.4 provide the range of tailpipe plus total
upstream CO2 emissions for EVs and PHEVs based on regional electricity emission rates.
For comparison, the average model year 2023 car is also included in the last row of Table
E.4. The methodology used to calculate the range of tailpipe plus total upstream CO2
emissions for EVs is shown in the following example for the model year 2023 Nissan Leaf
SV:
• Start with the label (5-cycle values weighted 55% city / 45% highway) vehicle
electricity consumption in kW-hr/mile, which for the Leaf is 31 kW-hr/100 miles, or
0.31 kW-hr/mile
• Determine the regional powerplant emission rate, regional losses during electricity
distribution, and the additional regional emissions due to fuel production upstream
of the powerplant (for California, these numbers are 241 g/kW-hr, 4.4%, and 9.1%,
respectively).
• Determine the regional upstream emission factor (for California 241 g/kW-hr / (1 -
0.044) * (1 +0.091) = 275 g C02/kW-hr)35
• Multiply by the range of Low (California = 275g C02/kW-hr), Average (National
Average = 428 g C02/kW-hr), and High (Midwest = 750 g C02/kW-hr) electricity
upstream CO2 emission rates, which yields a range for the Leaf of 85-231 grams
C02/mile.
The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values for PHEVs include the upstream C02
emissions due to electricity operation and both the tailpipe and upstream CO2 emissions
due to gasoline operation, using the utility factor discussed above to weight the values for
electricity and gasoline operation. The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values
for the average car are the average projected real-world model year 2022 car tailpipe C02
emissions multiplied by 1.25 to account for upstream emissions due to gasoline
production.
The values in columns four through six are tailpipe plus total upstream C02 emissions. As
mentioned, all of the gasoline and diesel vehicle C02 emissions data in the rest of this
report refer only to tailpipe emissions and do not reflect the upstream emissions
associated with gasoline or diesel production and distribution. Accordingly, in order to
equitably compare the overall relative impact of EVs and PHEVs with tailpipe emissions of
petroleum-fueled vehicles, EPA uses the metric "tailpipe plus net upstream emissions" for
35The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
E-7
-------
EVs and PHEVs. The net upstream emissions value for an EV is equal to the total upstream
emissions for the EV minus the upstream emissions that would be expected from a
comparably sized gasoline vehicle; size is a good first-order measure for utility, and
footprint is the size-based metric used for standards compliance. The net upstream
emissions for PHEVs are equal to the net upstream emissions of the PHEV due to electricity
consumption in electric or blended mode multiplied by the utility factor. The net upstream
emissions for a gasoline vehicle are zero. This approach was adopted for EV and PHEV
regulatory compliance with the 2012-2016 light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for
the production of EVs and PHEVs beyond a threshold; however, those thresholds were
never exceeded.
For each EV or PHEV, the upstream emissions for a comparable gasoline vehicle are
determined by first using the footprint-based compliance curves to determine the CO2
compliance target for a vehicle with the same footprint. Since upstream emissions account
for approximately 20% of total CO2 emissions for gasoline vehicles, the upstream emissions
for the comparable gasoline vehicle are equal to one-fourth of the tailpipe-only compliance
target.
The final three columns of Table E.4 give the tailpipe plus net upstream CO2 values for EVs
and PHEVs using the same Low, Average, and High electricity upstream C02 emissions rates
discussed above. These values bracket the possible real-world net CO2 emissions that
would be associated with consumer use of these vehicles. For the Nissan Leaf, these values
are simply the values in columns four through six minus the upstream GHG emissions of a
comparably sized gasoline vehicle. Based on the model year 2022 CO2 footprint curve, the
5-cycle tailpipe GHG emissions for a Leaf-sized gasoline vehicle meeting its compliance
target would be close to 197 grams/mi, with upstream emissions of one-fourth of this
value, or 49 g/mi. The net upstream emissions value for a Leaf is determined by subtracting
this value, 49 g/mi, from the total (tailpipe + total upstream). The result is a range for the
tailpipe plus net upstream value of 35-181 g/mile as shown in Table E.4, with a more likely
sales-weighted value in the 35-82 g/mi range.
For PHEVs, the tailpipe plus net upstream emissions values use the utility factor values
discussed above to weight the individual values for electric operation and gasoline
operation.
Alternative Metrics for EVs and PHEVs
Determining metrics for EVs and PHEVs that are meaningful and accurate is challenging. In
particular, vehicles capable of using dual fuels, such as PHEVs, can have complicated
E-8
-------
modes of operation that make it difficult to determine meaningful metrics to compare the
vehicle with other vehicles. Here we've discussed several metrics that are used on the
EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels and in a regulatory context, namely mpge,
tailpipe CO2 emissions, and net upstream GHG emissions. There are, however, other ways
that alternative fuel vehicle operation can be quantified.
Other energy metric options that could be considered include: (1) mpge plus net fuel life
cycle energy, which would also reflect differences in upstream energy consumption in
producing the alternative fuel relative to gasoline-from-oil; and (2) miles per gallon of
gasoline, which would only count gasoline use and not other forms of energy. Compared to
mpge, using the mpge plus net fuel life-cycle energy metric would generally result in lower
fuel economy values, and using the miles per gallon of gasoline metric would yield higher
fuel economy values.
Additional Note on PHEV Calculations
Calculating fuel economy and CO2 emission values for PHEVs is a complicated process, as
discussed in this section. The examples given for individual vehicles were based on
calculations behind the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels. In addition to the
approach used for the labels, there are multiple methods for determining utility factors
depending on the intended use of the value. The standardized utility factor calculations are
defined in the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE) document SAE J2841.
The utility factors that are used for fleetwide calculations are somewhat different than
those used to create label values. For label values, multi-day individual utility factors
(MDIUF) are used to incorporate "a driver's day to day variation into the utility calculation."
For fleetwide calculations, fleet utility factors (FUF) are applied to "calculate the expected
fuel and electric consumption of an entire fleet of vehicles." Since the Trends report is
generally a fleetwide analysis, the FUF utility factors were applied, instead of the MDIUF
utility factors, when the data were integrated with the rest of the fleet data. Additionally,
since Trends uses a 43% city / 57% highway weighting for combining real-world fuel
economy and CO2 data, the FUF utility factors created for Trends were based on that
weighting, not on 55% city / 45% highway weighting used on the fuel economy label.
E-9
-------
F. Regulatory Car and Truck Definitions
Under EPA's light-duty GHG regulations and NHTSA's fuel economy standards, new vehicles
are separated into two distinct regulatory classes, passenger cars and light trucks. Each
regulatory class has separate and unique GHG and fuel economy standards. The regulatory
definitions of passenger vehicles (cars) and light trucks (trucks) are located in the U.S.
Department of Transportation's (USDOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
(NHTSA) CAFE regulations (code of federal regulations: 49 CFR 523.5). NHTSA's regulatory
definitions are based in part on statutory definitions included in the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (codified
at 49 USC 32901). EPA references regulatory definitions for the light-duty GHG program
(code of federal regulations: 40 CFR 86.1818-12).
Figure F.1 shows the generalized decision tree for determining if a vehicle is a car or a truck
under the regulatory definitions, for model year 2012 and later vehicles. First, vehicles that
are above 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), or above 8,500 GVWR and not
considered a MDPV are excluded from EPA's light-duty GHG regulations and CAFE. If the
vehicle is below 8,500 pounds GVWR or an MDPV, then a vehicle can qualify as a light truck
based on the vehicle's functionality or off-road capabilities. Any light-duty vehicles that do
not meet the above functionality or off-road requirements are considered cars for
regulatory purposes.
Note that Figure F.1, and the description of car and truck regulations presented here, are
an overview of the regulatory definitions. They should not be considered a guidance
document or used for compliance purposes. Any compliance related questions as to the
car or truck classifications of specific vehicles should be referred directly to the agencies.
-------
Figure F.1. Regulatory Car or Truck Flow Chart
F-2
-------
G. Authors and Acknowledgments
The authors of this year's Trends report are Aaron Hula, Andrea Maguire, Amy Bunker,
Tristin Rojeck, and Sarah Harrison, all of whom work for the EPA Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ) at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. OTAQ colleagues including Karen Danzeisen and Ching-Shih Yang provided
critical access and expertise pertaining to the EV-CIS data that comprise the Trends
database. The authors also want to thank Gwen Dietrich and Eloise Anagnost of OTAQ for
greatly improving the design and layout of the report. General Dynamics Information
Technology (GDIT) under contract to OTAQ, provided key support for database
maintenance, and table and figure generation. DOT/NHTSA staff reviewed the report and
provided helpful comments. Of course, the EPA authors take full responsibility for the
content and any errors.
The authors also want to acknowledge those OTAQ staff that played key roles in creating
and maintaining the Trends database and report since its inception in the early 1970s. Karl
Hellman, who conceived of and developed the initial Trends reports with Thomas Austin in
the early 1970s, was the guiding force behind the Trends report for over 30 years. Dill
Murrell made significant contributions from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, and
Robert Heavenrich was a lead author from the early 1980s through 2006. Jeff Alson
oversaw the continued transformation and modernization of this report from 2007
through 2018. The compliance portion of this report (now section 5) was developed by
Roberts French, and he remained the lead author through the 2019 report. This report has
benefitted immensely from the wealth of insight, creativity, and dedication from each of
these outstanding emeritus authors.
G-3
------- |